Comment by lima 2 days ago Much more flexible than Skaffold thanks to Starlark config vs. a rigid YAML structure. 1 comment lima Reply ajayvk 2 days ago Starlark does allow for much more concise and powerful config specification. I am building https://github.com/claceio/clace, which is an application server for teams to deploy internal tools.Clace uses Starlark for defining apps, instead of something like YAML. https://github.com/claceio/clace/blob/main/examples/utils.st... is a config file which defines around seven apps (apps are downloaded and deployed directly from git).Clace uses Starlark for defining app level routing rules also. This avoids the need to use a nginx like DSL for routing.
ajayvk 2 days ago Starlark does allow for much more concise and powerful config specification. I am building https://github.com/claceio/clace, which is an application server for teams to deploy internal tools.Clace uses Starlark for defining apps, instead of something like YAML. https://github.com/claceio/clace/blob/main/examples/utils.st... is a config file which defines around seven apps (apps are downloaded and deployed directly from git).Clace uses Starlark for defining app level routing rules also. This avoids the need to use a nginx like DSL for routing.
Starlark does allow for much more concise and powerful config specification. I am building https://github.com/claceio/clace, which is an application server for teams to deploy internal tools.
Clace uses Starlark for defining apps, instead of something like YAML. https://github.com/claceio/clace/blob/main/examples/utils.st... is a config file which defines around seven apps (apps are downloaded and deployed directly from git).
Clace uses Starlark for defining app level routing rules also. This avoids the need to use a nginx like DSL for routing.