Antithetical

Alright, I’ll give you that… Welcome!

Nobody has won, they’re just going to the store to get some lube…

Oh certificates are so much fun and you have so many options. From fairly easy to mindboggling complex.

Your current solution is OK if you keep in mind security implications of distributing certs using scripts.

It is not entirely clear where you do your tls-termination but it sounds like that is the Caddy reverse proxy so that is where your certs should be.

Placing them in a location like /etc/ssl/example_com/ as fullchain.pem and privkey.pem is probably easiest. Make sure access rights are appropriate. Then point Caddy at them and it should work. I have no experience with Caddy itself though. If Caddy runs in Docker be sure to map the certificates into the container.

Mind that in this scenario the certificates are only on the Caddy server, connections from the reverse proxy to the services is unencrypted over http. You can’t easily use the LE certificates on the services itself without some ugly split-horizon DNS shenanigans.

Alternatively you can set up a PKI with certificates for your services behind the reverse-proxy for internal encryption and do public tls termination in the proxy with Let’s Encrypt.

As a life-long developer in OOP languages (C++, Java, C#, among others) I still think OOP is quite good when used with discipline. And it pains me that there is so much misunderstood hate towards it nowdays.

Most often novice programmers try to abuse the inheritence for inpropper avoiding of duplicate code, and write themself into a horrible sphagetti of dependencies. So having a good base or design beforehand helps a lot. But building the code out of logical units with fenced responisbilities is in my opinion a good way to structure code.

Currently I’m doing a (hobby) project in Rust to get some feeling for it. And I have a hard time to wrap my mind around some design choices in the language that would have been very easily solved with a more OOP like structure. Without sacrificing the safety guarantees. But I think they’ve deliberatly avoided going in that direction. Ofcourse, my understanding of Rust is far from complete so it is probably that I missed some nuance… But still I wonder. It is a good learning experience though, a new way to look at things.

The article was not very readable on mobile for me but the examples seemed a bit contrived…