Update production best practices

[bjohansebas]

Modernize this page by making the following changes:

• Update broken links
• Remove references to Upstart, as this service has been in maintenance mode for several years
• Remove references to Strongloop, updating documentation with current tools

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for expressjscom-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1c6ebf7
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/expressjscom-preview/deploys/67af7780e8710f000847ea6f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1679--expressjscom-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[UlisesGascon]

I like the changes, but I think that we need to have a good agreement on this (cc: @expressjs/express-tc )

[wesleytodd]

I think this is an improvement for sure. Great work @bjohansebas!

I think we probably need to re-think the role our docs play in the ecosystem. Best practices have evolved quite a bit since this was all written, and it will evolve again in the coming years. We probably don't want to be the source for too much content like this unless we are able to keep it updated.

That said, for now, I am very much in support of improving this type of doc so LGTM!

[wesleytodd]

oops forgot to change it to approve

[dpopp07]

Just a quick proof read

[Phillip9587]

Please update the following link in the Cache Request Results section: https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/start/topics/examples/reverseproxycachingexample/ it is invalid and redirects to https://docs.nginx.com/

Maybe replace it with: https://blog.nginx.org/blog/nginx-caching-guide

[wesleytodd]

Looks like we have approvals and have resolved the concerns. The merge block now is just rebasing I think.

EDIT: oh wait, I jus read @Phillip9587's comment. Seems like a good last minute change.

EDIT 2: lol, commented while the update was being pushed!

[bjohansebas]

The only thing blocking this PR is @ctcpip 's request change. I can remove @ctcpip 's request change, but I would prefer that he remove it himself. I can wait a few more minutes.

[wesleytodd]

Oh yeah, we should never remove others reviews. I saw a yellow "comment" review in the sidebar but missed that there was still a previous "change requested" review that was blocking and hidden in the collapsed comments.

[ctcpip]

I know this was suggested by @wesleytodd, but this seems... slightly heavy-handed (?), and at least could be worded better (using your init system vs using your system's init, for example. Do we really want to take a position of saying using pm2 is not a "best practice"? If that's the case (which I am challenging here), then we shouldn't even be mentioning pm2.

[bjohansebas]

That would require rewriting a large part where PM2 was mentioned, so removing it is not an option at the moment.

[wesleytodd]

Do we really want to take a position of saying using pm2 is not a "best practice"?

Clearly IMO yes lol, but I fully understand your reasoning for being hesitant. Having used basically all variants at different points of my career, I can comfortably say that operating system process management is always better. And even if you use pm2 you nearly certainly have to also use your OS process manager to kick off pm2, so why make it more complicated?

then we shouldn't even be mentioning pm2.

This is what I would prefer, but I thought that was a larger change from our existing docs.

at least could be worded better (using your init system vs using your system's init, for example.

That's a good change, I didn't really spend a ton of time on that suggestion, my bad.

[bjohansebas]

I can dedicate another PR to removing PM2, but for now, I changed the wording to the suggestion that Chris proposed.

[wesleytodd]

Sounds good to me.

[bjohansebas]

@ctcpip, do you consider this resolved?

[wesleytodd]

Changing to approved since we have a plan to address all the things I was concerned about in future PRs.