Jeston intentionally separates development and production choices: local memory versus distributed cache, a fake queue versus a durable queue, temporary files versus object storage, and console logs versus exported metrics.
Why this matters
Jeston's design keeps the runtime explicit. The framework gives teams a place to express the contract, while the application remains responsible for provider choice, policy, failure handling, and operational measurement.
A practical reading rule
Separate supported behavior from experimental work, roadmap items, catalog metadata, and application responsibilities. That distinction is essential when adopting a framework and when writing upgrade documentation.
This article is part of a technical series about Jeston by Kvant. The source of truth is the official repository. Verify the current package and documentation before applying any example to production.
Top comments (1)
Your approach to separating local and production environments in Jeston is a smart way to ensure that teams maintain clarity in their runtime choices. This explicit separation not only aids in debugging but also helps in scaling the application as it grows. Have you considered adding more best practices on how to transition from local to production without introducing risks? If you're looking for support in enhancing this aspect further, I’d be glad to explore a paid collaboration.