Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 92 posts

Re: Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

#3

Post by jacobn »

Does it really make sense to map each controller method to a lambda? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have gateway route to a single function per controller and then do the method routing inside that function? You’re going to get a lot of lambda functions otherwise.

Re: Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

#4

Post by astuyvenberg »

jacobn wrote: post #3

Does it really make sense to map each controller method to a lambda? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have gateway route to a single function per controller and then do the method routing inside that function? You’re going to get a lot of lambda functions otherwise.

It's typically fine - AWS bills by GB/s (in ms), not by number of functions in an account.

There are limits to the number of functions per account, and number of resources per CloudFormation stack (etc); but within those parameters it's usually a good idea to use one function for a specific controller or action. This allows you to limit IAM permissions, configure memory/CPU, and define associated resources at a per-controller level.

Re: Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

#5

Post by aa_memon »

astuyvenberg wrote: post #4
jacobn wrote: post #3

Does it really make sense to map each controller method to a lambda? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have gateway route to a single function per controller and then do the method routing inside that function? You’re going to get a lot of lambda functions otherwise.

It's typically fine - AWS bills by GB/s (in ms), not by number of functions in an account. There are limits to the number of functions per account, and number of resources per CloudFormation stack (etc); but within those parameters it's usually a good idea to use one function for a specific controller or action. This allows you to limit IAM permissions, configure memory/CPU, and define associated resources at a per-c…

I'm guessing it also helps keep deploys small (atomic?) when a controller method changes. The unmodified lambdas stay untouched.

Re: Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

#6

Post by nixpulvis »

Am I the only one who is kinda irritated with how AWS has effectively created a piecemeal proprietary operating system and slowly started displacing good server ops? All while "supporting" open-source development.

I really don't want to be an AWS engineer. I like being able to host my own tools when I want.

Sorry for the rant, serverless stuff in general is cool.

As a followup... I'm curious if anyone can recommend solid opensource serverless runtime projects with decent management interfaces (CLIs are nice)? It would be neat if projects like Ruby on Jets could become "lambda-agnostic" for lack of a better tagline, if they're not already.

Re: Ruby on Jets: Like Rails but serverless

#8

Post by bigfoot675 »

astuyvenberg wrote: post #4
jacobn wrote: post #3

Does it really make sense to map each controller method to a lambda? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have gateway route to a single function per controller and then do the method routing inside that function? You’re going to get a lot of lambda functions otherwise.

It's typically fine - AWS bills by GB/s (in ms), not by number of functions in an account. There are limits to the number of functions per account, and number of resources per CloudFormation stack (etc); but within those parameters it's usually a good idea to use one function for a specific controller or action. This allows you to limit IAM permissions, configure memory/CPU, and define associated resources at a per-c…

You will definitely run into more cold starts though, if that is a consideration for your project
Post reply on HN