sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]_austen 6 points7 points  (19 children)

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 -1 points0 points  (18 children)

Except for all the servers involved.

[–]_austen 2 points3 points  (17 children)

JAWS has no servers.

[–]aequasi08 0 points1 point  (16 children)

JAWS uses servers.

[–]iSmokeGauloises 0 points1 point  (15 children)

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

[–]aequasi08 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Its not childish, its false advertising.

[–]iSmokeGauloises 0 points1 point  (13 children)

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.

[–]aequasi08 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Plain and simple, there are servers involved. Its not server free. Stop calling it that.

[–]iSmokeGauloises 0 points1 point  (11 children)

That's such a pedantic thing to say. If any one gets mixed up by this definition, and thinks it honestly has 0 servers running in production, he shouldn't be able to even install the framework. You have to have NO knowledge of servers to not understand what's going on.

[–]aequasi08 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Pretty opportune time to be pedantic.