templar

A difference is that Templar gives you control of options applied to each request differently rather than the same the same to all.

Another option is a long poll endpoint within Templar that it can deliver a stream of responses on.

If it was important enough - they would fix the high templar/ghost problem the same way.

Instead, when they get in range of each other one templar casts the spell first, kill the other, and survives.

From timeouts to caching, one Templar can be used for all different kinds of upstream APIs.

All else equal, if nginx is already in my stack and Templar is not, why do I want to adopt Templar, or indeed even look twice at it?

The later, Templar could have an option that tell it to only connect to public ips.

Pretty fascinating as it really gets down to how the Knights Templar discovered America perhaps hundreds of years before Columbus.

Which templar lives and which dies depends on the order the units are processed in the frame —arguably an implementation detail.

Everything within templar can be done by adding capabilities to client libraries, no argument.

That cache time could be as long as 5 seconds, so that Templar is checking pretty often if the upstream has changed.

That assumes nginx has the capability to do what Templar does and I don't believe that's true.

Feels like the right way to handle this is the allow a blacklist to be defined via config file, then applied as request, something like "X-Templar-Blacklist: internal".

Then, when you've survived the pain, you meet the usual suspects: "Who wrote Shakespeare's plays?" "Look, the Knights Templar!" "It's a Freemason conspiracy!" I wasted my time here.

He dresses like a Knight Templar, he speaks of a crusade, these are all religious in nature.

Templar does not do SSL termination because it does not terminate requests for your api.

Perhaps it would help to know what use case prompted Templar's development.