Question 1

Oxpecker vs Giraffe: which one should I use?

Accepted Answer

Oxpecker is a performance-optimized successor to Giraffe, maintaining API compatibility but with simplified handlers and modern ASP.NET Core integration. Choose Oxpecker for better benchmarks; stick with Giraffe if you need stable, legacy features without migration.

Question 2

How to integrate HTMX with Oxpecker for dynamic UIs?

Accepted Answer

Use the Oxpecker.Htmx package, which provides seamless server-side handlers for HTMX requests. The example HTMX Contact App demonstrates how to build interactive components without writing JavaScript.

Question 3

Is Oxpecker good for building SPAs with Solid.js?

Accepted Answer

Yes, Oxpecker.Solid enables F#-driven SPAs using Solid.js, as shown in the TodoList example. However, it's tailored for F# developers and lacks the vast plugin ecosystem of JavaScript-focused frameworks like React.

Question 4

What performance benchmarks does Oxpecker have?

Accepted Answer

Oxpecker ranks highly in TechEmpower benchmarks for .NET web frameworks, cited in the README for categories like routing and JSON serialization, validating its claim as a top-performing option.

Question 5

How to migrate from ASP.NET Core Minimal APIs to Oxpecker?

Accepted Answer

Leverage Oxpecker's endpoint routing compatibility—start by replacing Minimal API handlers with Oxpecker's functional handlers and use the provided examples, such as the WeatherApp, to guide the transition.

Question 6

Does Oxpecker support real-time features like WebSockets?

Accepted Answer

While not a core feature, Oxpecker builds on ASP.NET Core, which supports WebSockets. You'll need to implement additional middleware or use external libraries, as Oxpecker focuses on HTMX and Solid.js integrations.

Oxpecker

What is Oxpecker?

Overview

Use Cases

Best For

Related Projects

Found a gem we're missing?

Not Ideal For

Pros & Cons

Pros

Cons

Frequently Asked Questions