RFC 358: alternative routers, Adaptor vs Side-car pattern

[EwenQuim]

@dylanhitt's suggestion is to have an fuegogin.Adaptor wrapping fuego's Engine and gin's Mux. This would open several possibilities in the future. Current one is purely an API design issue, that would allow to make OpenAPI routes registration more automatic.

My personal opinion (that might change) is that I love to have a "side-car" fuego.Engine and let the user have the control on its own gin.Engine. Both live "side by side". I think that wrapping it in an adaptor might feel "magical". This is the current pattern in the gin and echo compatibility alpha, but this might change.

This is very very challengeable, @qbit @redecs @Jeremie-Chauvel @rizerkrof @ccoVeille and others, as users, what would you prefer?

1️⃣ Adaptor

fuegoGinAdaptor := fuegogin.NewAdaptor(fuegoEngine, ginMux)

fuego.Get(fuegoGinAdaptor, "/my-route", myController)
fuego.GetGin(fuegoGinAdaptor, "/my-route", myController)

2️⃣ side-car

fuego.Get(fuegoEngine, ginMux, "/my-route", myController)
fuego.GetGin(fuegoEngine, ginMux, "/my-route", myController)

---

On implem side, it would look like this

func GetGin(a *Adaptor, path string, handler gin.HandlerFunc, options ...func(*fuego.BaseRoute)) *fuego.Route[any, any] {
	return handleGin(a, http.MethodGet, path, handler, options...)
}

ref #344 (comment)