I stumbled lately upon one other instance. A Google engineer wrote a submit, named fairly provocatively “Cease Utilizing .env Information Now!”. Within the submit, he explains the issues of .env recordsdata and the way to remedy them utilizing a configuration server.
In response, one other author created one other submit, named “Proceed Utilizing .env Information As Normal”. As you’ll be able to think about, the creator focuses on explaining that .env recordsdata are acceptable and describes the problems of utilizing a configuration server.
The preliminary submit barely describes the issue, expediting it in a single quick part. And in it, the creator writes:
>I don’t even have to elucidate why that is dangerous
Sorry however not sorry: certainly, you do!
To be sincere, the debunking submit doesn’t do a greater job. Each deal with their most-beloved answer, however neither does a superb job of explaining their drawback of their context.
PS: the underlying drawback is that .env file administration doesn’t scale. For a company the scale of Google, that’s a giant problem; for a small group, they’re tremendous.
