FYI, our library is now open. You can find the code here. There’s a basic tutorial on the repo readme, and some further details in moduledoc. Any feedback is very welcome

Yeah, we’ll opensource that lib, though I’m not exactly sure when. I’ll try to make it happen soon-ish

As a bit of a background, when I wrote that lib, I took a glance at vapor (I wasn’t aware of skogsrå at the time, and I only learned of specify in your post ). Perhaps it was just the lack of docs, but my impression was that for the stuff we wanted, we’d have to implement most of functionality ourselves. Since my clients currently only use OS env, the conclusion was that vapor would basically be used as a glorified System.env wrapper, so we didn’t end up using it.

As demoed in those tweets, here are some of the things we wanted:

1. The ability to automatically create operator templates (.env files) automatically. This is an absolute must for us, because without it producing the list of required & optional vars is extremely error prone.
2. Providing sane defaults in dev/test allows us to make the projects runnable out of the box. As long as you’re e.g. running postgresql on the default port, the code will work without any special configuration. In particular, we don’t need to maintain a set of separate .env files or use envrc (which was also error prone, leading to frequent situations where project works for one dev, but doesn’t for others).
3. Compile-time generation of access functions makes it possible to detect spelling errors (e.g. db_poll_size) during compilation.
4. Included typespecs improve reasoning about the code.

All this being said, I feel that we don’t need such fragmentation, and that it would be better if we somehow rallied behind a single implementation. If other authors are open to this idea, I’m up for discussing it further.

But in any case, I feel we definitely need some solutions which make operator configuration simple, so in that sense, I guess it’s better to have four libs instead of zero

I’ve developed Skogsrå a while ago, because we’ve found configurations could get messy in the long run when you have many releases. Right now, I’m using it extensively in:

• My personal project.
• Some of the open source libraries I maintain.
• The company I work for at the moment.

Though the startup I’ve developed this for doesn’t exist anymore, I kept using the library and adding the features I needed. The ones I use the most are the ones described here

Anyway, regarding the following:

I agree with @sasajuric. We (the maintainers of all those libraries) could join forces and actually develop an Elixir built-in solution. Our experiences configuring production systems all this years might come handy when developing an unified solution.

However, I also agree with this. This gives us a diverse ecosystem.

These are exactly my feelings. Our individual solutions might look slightly different. But this is the core problem.

We’re using Vapor extensively at my work: https://github.com/keathley/vapor/.

The README probably needs to be touched up a bit. We’ve added a lot of ergonomics (specifying translations with a config value, grouping providers, etc.) that aren’t well documented atm.