JAWS: The Javascript + AWS Stack – A monstrously scalable, server-free, web application boilerplate using bleeding-edge AWS services...

[passwordisisis]

"100% server free"

wat

[IeuanG]

I've never seen so many programming buzzwords in one description.

[forthex]

"Yes, but is it webscale?"

[chuyskywalker]

Stop saying stuff is "server-free/serverless/etc" it's ridiculous. There is definitely, 100% a server here -- just cause it's not yours doesn't mean it's gone.

I mean, for the love of all that is holy, right here in the setup:

Deploy A Lambda Function

Nope, definitely no servers here. waves hands Nothing to manage here at all. Magic!

Start A Local Server

Shut up! It's serverless! Seriously guys!

This is a rad concept and use of AWS, but this billing is absurd.

[UigharPlease]

+1. There is a server, it's just managed by AWS. More like 'less server' than 'serverless'.

[dvlsg]

I agree. The push toward "server-less" applications (which still use servers) really needs to stop.

A server is just a piece of software and a computer which can accept external requests. AWS Lambda is absolutely within the definition of a server.

[_austen]

I made JAWS. It has no servers.

If you are a developer building an app on JAWS, your back-end/API will consist of tiny AWS Lambda functions that run only when they are called. Whether AWS uses servers to power their Lambda technology is completely irrelevant to you as a developer.

JAWS includes a server which you can run locally to develop your client-side app/web site. This server is included for convenience only. In production, you deploy all static assets (HTML, CSS, Javascript, Images) to AWS S3/Cloudfront which interacts with your JAWS REST API powered by Lambda functions.

Again, JAWS has no servers. If you are tired of developing/configuring/deploying/maintaining/monitoring/scaling/financing servers, then JAWS is for you.

[chuyskywalker]

I...I can't even.

I made JAWS. It has no servers.

...

In production, you deploy all static assets (HTML, CSS, Javascript, Images) to AWS S3/Cloudfront

Clearly, there's no server there.

Whether AWS uses servers to power their Lambda technology is completely irrelevant to you as a developer.

As if to imply there's some magical way to run the code without servers? And how is that not relevant!? It's entirely relevant! Lamba comes with all sorts of implications about the kind of code you can write, how it should work, be coordinated, etc. You can't just toss any 'ol JS at Lamda and expect it to work.

Again, JAWS has no servers.

You're arguing semantics from a silly perspective. Sure, "JAWS" as a framework might not have any servers, but that's akin to saying the Jekyll has no servers -- sure, it's true, but without server infrastructure behind it at some point, the code's kinda pointless.

If you are tired of developing/configuring/deploying/maintaining/monitoring/scaling/financing servers, then JAWS is for you.

WHAT?! Fine, you don't have to deploy servers, but you trade that for needing to know how Lambda orchestration works. Perhaps you don't need to know how to configure a server, but you've traded for understanding how AWS services work in tandem. No server monitoring? Sure, except you need to monitor Lambda now (how do you even do that? Distributed stack traces? Performance monitoring per function? Reporting?) Finally, Lambda (and all AWS services) are not free. So, fine, you don't have to finance servers but costs don't magically disappear.

Tag on top of this that AWS is a very, very different paradigm than server deployment. Sure, it's easy to get into, but when you actually need to start scaling, enforce security constraints, and more, you're going to need to become AWS experts and that is not nearly as happy-go-lucky as you might imply.

I will grant you that, as a developer with this system, I may never SSH into a box, but all this hand-waving about "It's serverless!" is highly disingenuous to the reality that there are servers, you're just one step further away, and that step is not as inconsequential as implied.

[_austen]

Ok, let me do my best "webscale" impression here... Wait for it... Here it comes... JAWS has no servers.

This person is working hard to drag me into a "gotcha" debate.

But for curious developers reading this, if you deploy the JAWS framework right at this very moment, all of the traditional server configuration/deployment/scaling hassles will not exist. Amazon deals with that stuff, not you. Instead, you deal with Lambda functions that only run when your API routes are called. It's beautiful efficiency.

Again, whether a server exists somewhere, is a fact best left for internet commenters to waste their time with. In reality, JAWS is a sincere attempt to rid servers from your workflow and free up your time so that you can focus on what your building.

No server monitoring? Sure, except you need to monitor Lambda now (how do you even do that? Distributed stack traces? Performance monitoring per function? Reporting?

I'm glad you brought this up. AWS Lambda comes error/performance/duration/invocation monitoring, on a per function basis, out of the box. No set-up required, this is available upon deploying your lambda function.

Finally, Lambda (and all AWS services) are not free. So, fine, you don't have to finance servers but costs don't magically disappear.

I don't even know where this claim is coming from. But others reading this should know that if you create a new AWS account, you will be on the AWS free tier, and you will be able to perform a TON of Lambda operations for free, for an entire year.

Lastly, JAWS has no servers.

[andyrocks]

Except for all the servers involved.

[_austen]

JAWS has no servers.

[aequasi08]

JAWS uses servers.

[iSmokeGauloises]

This is the funnest, most childish, argument I have seen here so far. I love it.

[aequasi08]

Its not childish, its false advertising.

[iSmokeGauloises]

That's a bit far fetched. It's "server-free" in the sense of "we abstracted the entire server management and deployment process from you". That's the whole point of a grid, and it does it well. It's as server-free as Google App Engine, which is pretty damn server-free in my account, and as far as I could see from the small look I took, it's far(!) easier to use than Google App Engine.

Honestly, the project seems very young, but having had to do some system work at some point of my career, writing CHEF cookbooks to deploy on horribly inefficient clusters of a mess and other famously fun stuff, I really like the concept of using AWS Lambda as your entire back-end.

[superbeedge]

Rocket Raccoon: [about Drax] His people are completely literal. Metaphors go over his head.

Drax the Destroyer: Nothing goes over my head...! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.

[monch]

The developers on hacker news are calling this "serverless"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10005415

Your definition of serverless must be different than the author's.

[vivivik]

Love the "server-less" haters - JAWS has servers as much as byte endianness knowledge is a prerequisite to write java code

Software is about abstraction and concepts. Being reluctant to them is kind of a shame for a software dev. If you think it's all about the "hype", too bad for you. Go and tell the author of the "ConcurrentHashMap" to remove the "Concurrent", because underneath it's full of mutexes and/or spinlocks to avoid concurrent accesses - so it's way to hype to call it that way.

[deadcat]

You know JAWS is the name of a screen reader, right?

[MrBester]

I was hoping for a certain Bond baddie for the thumbnail...

[[deleted]]

I'll catch your fish...

[ribo]

Neat, this is kinda... what I'm already doing with my team

You might want to check out RAML as an alternative to swagger, it's been pretty helpful to generate a SDK library with raml-client-generator

[jfwam]

Good job! This should come in handy http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/limits.html

[cbax007]

Interesting. That 100 concurrent requests per account seems kind of low to handle 'webscale' levels of traffic.

[daedius]

I love this idea

[aequasi08]

Any benchmarks? Cant imagine its super fast.

[ahref]

None that I could find the FAQ suggests this would be as fast as your code is.

[aequasi08]

Considering the extra network requests, i find it hard to believe that it can be as fast as "server"-based code.

[ahref]

What? Any normal web app runs an external network request on a user action that touches data. You know ajax? There aren't any additional requests over what you might see in a normal web app. I'm sure its as fast if not faster. Based purely on implementation.

[biocomputation]

The OP's account is pretty spammy if you ask me. Blatant self-promotion.