# WarpDrive vs Aralez: Complete Analysis Index

## Overview

This directory contains a comprehensive feature comparison between **WarpDrive** (v0.3.0) and **Aralez** (v0.9.2), two Rust-based reverse proxies built on Cloudflare's Pingora framework.

**Quick Answer:** They're complementary, not competitors.
- **WarpDrive** = App-centric proxy with process management, caching, plugins
- **Aralez** = Edge-centric proxy with authentication, service discovery, hot-reload

---

## Analysis Documents

### 1. FEATURE_COMPARISON_SUMMARY.md (Main Document)
**Start here for quick understanding**
- Executive summary and quick overview table
- 12 WarpDrive exclusive features
- 10 Aralez exclusive features
- Critical gaps analysis (tier-based)
- Use case recommendations
- Deployment considerations
- Implementation roadmap for WarpDrive

### 2. COMPARISON_ANALYSIS.md (Detailed Matrix)
**For comprehensive feature-by-feature comparison**
- Core proxy capabilities (HTTP, HTTP/2, WebSocket, gRPC)
- Load balancing & routing strategies
- TLS/SSL & certificate management
- Authentication & authorization
- Caching (L1+L2)
- Rate limiting & resilience
- Observability & metrics
- Process management & supervision
- Clustering & coordination
- Configuration management
- Middleware & request processing
- Extensibility & plugins
- Deployment & operations
- Unique features summary
- Architectural differences
- Performance characteristics
- Use case recommendations
- Configuration complexity examples

### 3. WARPDRIVE_GAPS.md (Gap Analysis)
**For understanding what WarpDrive is missing**
- 18 feature gaps categorized by priority
- Critical gaps (Tier 1):
  1. Authentication (0/3 mechanisms)
  2. Hot-reload configuration
  3. Service discovery
  4. Automatic TLS detection
  5. Sticky sessions
  6. Per-path rate limiting
  7. Live process upgrade
  8. Multiple load balancing strategies
  9. Remote config push API
- Important gaps (Tier 2): 7 features
- Nice-to-have gaps (Tier 3): 4 features
- Impact analysis for each gap
- Workarounds provided
- Severity matrix by category

---

## Quick Reference Tables

### Feature Scorecard

| Category | WarpDrive | Aralez |
|----------|-----------|--------|
| **Process Management** | ✅ Excellent | ❌ None |
| **Caching** | ✅ L1+L2 | ❌ None |
| **Authentication** | ❌ None | ✅ 3 methods |
| **Service Discovery** | ❌ None | ✅ Consul/K8s |
| **Configuration** | ⚠️ TOML | ✅ YAML + hot-reload |
| **Plugins/Extensibility** | ✅ WASM | ❌ Limited |
| **Compression** | ✅ Gzip/Brotli/ZStd | ❌ None |
| **TLS Provisioning** | ✅ ACME | ❌ Manual |
| **Resilience** | ✅ Circuit breaker | ❌ Failover only |
| **Performance** | ? Unknown | ✅ 129K+ req/s |

### When to Use

**WarpDrive:**
- Dev/staging with embedded app servers
- Self-contained deployments
- Need in-transit HTTP caching
- WASM plugin extensibility
- Multi-instance clustering

**Aralez:**
- High-volume edge routing
- Cloud-native (Consul/K8s)
- API gateway scenarios
- Zero-downtime deployments
- Multi-tenant platforms

**Both Together:**
- Aralez at edge (routing, auth, discovery)
- WarpDrive internally (process management, caching, plugins)

---

## Critical Gaps for Production Adoption

### Must-Have for WarpDrive (Priority 1):
1. Authentication (Basic, API Key, JWT)
2. Hot-reload configuration
3. Service discovery (Consul, Kubernetes)

### Important for Enterprise (Priority 2):
4. Automatic upstream TLS detection
5. Per-path rate limiting
6. Sticky sessions
7. HTTP health checks

### Nice-to-Have Enhancements (Priority 3-4):
8. Multiple load balancing strategies
9. Remote config push API
10. TLS grade presets
11. Live process upgrade
12. Published performance benchmarks

---

## Architecture Comparison

### WarpDrive Design Philosophy
- **Focus:** Application-centric
- **Deployment:** Standalone with embedded server management
- **State:** In-memory L1 + optional Redis L2
- **Extensibility:** WASM plugin system
- **Configuration:** Code (TOML) + environment
- **Best For:** Complex app deployments, dev/staging

### Aralez Design Philosophy
- **Focus:** Edge-centric
- **Deployment:** Standalone router to external services
- **State:** Stateless (upstream responsibility)
- **Extensibility:** Limited (intentional)
- **Configuration:** YAML with file-watch
- **Best For:** High-performance routing, dynamic infrastructure

---

## Performance Notes

| Aspect | WarpDrive | Aralez |
|--------|-----------|--------|
| Static Files | 600+ req/s | N/A |
| Raw Throughput | Unknown | 129,777 req/s (glibc) |
| Memory | ~64MB minimum (LRU) | Lower (no caching) |
| Optimization | Feature-rich | Raw throughput |
| Use Case | Flexibility | Throughput |

---

## Configuration Examples

### WarpDrive (TOML)
```toml
[upstreams.app]
protocol = "http"
host = "127.0.0.1"
port = 3000

[[routes]]
path_prefix = "/"
upstream = "app"

[middleware.rate_limit]
enabled = true
requests_per_second = 100
```

### Aralez (YAML)
```yaml
myhost.example.com:
  paths:
    "/":
      rate_limit: 100
      servers:
        - "127.0.0.1:3000"
```

---

## Implementation Status

### WarpDrive v0.3.0 (Early)
- Version: 0.3.0
- Status: Early/Experimental
- ACME renewal: Experimental
- Crash recovery: Experimental
- See LIMITATIONS.md for details
- Growing community

### Aralez v0.9.2 (Stable)
- Version: 0.9.2
- Status: Stable/Production-ready
- Established community
- Published benchmarks
- Production deployments

---

## Roadmap Priority (for WarpDrive)

### Phase 1: Enterprise Features
- [ ] Basic/API Key/JWT authentication
- [ ] Hot-reload configuration
- [ ] Service discovery providers

### Phase 2: Advanced Features
- [ ] Automatic upstream TLS detection
- [ ] Per-path rate limiting
- [ ] Sticky sessions
- [ ] HTTP health checks for routing

### Phase 3: Additional Features
- [ ] Multiple load balancing strategies
- [ ] Remote config push API
- [ ] TLS grade presets
- [ ] Live process upgrade

### Phase 4: Polish
- [ ] Performance benchmarks
- [ ] Pre-built binary distributions
- [ ] Systemd template
- [ ] YAML configuration support

---

## Key Findings

### Complementary Strengths
1. **Process Management** - WarpDrive only; critical for app deployment
2. **Service Discovery** - Aralez only; critical for cloud-native
3. **Authentication** - Aralez only; needed for API gateways
4. **Hot Reload** - Aralez only; needed for zero-downtime
5. **Caching** - WarpDrive only; needed for performance
6. **Extensibility** - WarpDrive only (WASM); Aralez intentionally limited

### Neither is Complete Replacement
- WarpDrive missing: auth, hot-reload, service discovery
- Aralez missing: process management, caching, extensibility
- Both have circuit breakers but different implementations
- Both have rate limiting but different granularity

### Best Deployment Patterns
1. **Monolithic app** → WarpDrive alone
2. **Microservices** → Aralez alone
3. **Hybrid** → Aralez (edge) + WarpDrive (internal)

---

## Conclusion

**WarpDrive and Aralez solve different problems:**

- Choose **WarpDrive** if you need built-in process management and caching
- Choose **Aralez** if you need service discovery and authentication
- Use **both** if you have hybrid requirements

The 16 feature gaps in WarpDrive are addressable but represent significant development. Conversely, Aralez gaps (process management, caching, plugins) are intentional design choices for simplicity and performance.

---

## Document Metadata

- **Analysis Date:** October 17, 2025
- **WarpDrive Version Analyzed:** 0.3.0
- **Aralez Version Analyzed:** 0.9.2
- **Scope:** Complete codebase exploration
- **Depth:** Comprehensive (18 feature categories)

---

## Files Included

1. `FEATURE_COMPARISON_SUMMARY.md` - Main document (11 KB)
2. `COMPARISON_ANALYSIS.md` - Detailed matrix (17 KB)
3. `WARPDRIVE_GAPS.md` - Gap analysis (10 KB)
4. `COMPARISON_INDEX.md` - This file (navigation guide)

**Total Content:** ~48 KB of detailed analysis, ready for presentation or architectural decisions.

