Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#2"Ride the serverless wave by creating and maintaining a server"
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#3"Ride the serverless wave by creating and maintaining a server"
You beat me to it. While this looks like some fairly cool automation, the very first step is to create a bloody server.
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#4There are shipload of "one-clicks" while doing this.
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#5Aws lambda is serverless. This is not because you have to maintain a server
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#6"Ride the serverless wave by creating and maintaining a server"
You beat me to it. While this looks like some fairly cool automation, the very first step is to create a bloody server .
This is a funny thing, but still, having a "Function as a Service" is a nice tool to have, regardless of how truly "serverless" it is. Lambda, et al offer the convenience of not having to run your own server, but a FaaS is a great concept regardless of whether you're hosting it yourself or using a cloud provider's version.
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#7This is just for the MVP. The next phase is to take all those functions, package them up in a monolithic framework so they can work together and then deploy to a machine in the office's server closet.
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#8Aws lambda is serverless. This is not because you have to maintain a server
"Serverless" is one of the worst misnomers I've ever seen.
Re: Ride the Serverless Wave with DigitalOcean's One-Click Droplet
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You beat me to it. While this looks like some fairly cool automation, the very first step is to create a bloody server .
This is a funny thing, but still, having a "Function as a Service" is a nice tool to have, regardless of how truly "serverless" it is. Lambda, et al offer the convenience of not having to run your own server, but a FaaS is a great concept regardless of whether you're hosting it yourself or using a cloud provider's version.
I don't see how. I thought the whole use case for FaaS is that you're only paying for the literally milliseconds of compute time you use, and nothing more.
But if you're already paying for the server, what's the point? I suppose you could host a lot more low-volume apps on one server?