3 ms·
> - Vendor lock-in: although I try to minimise this and have a clear picture of where the lock-in lies, it is very much present. The post isn't loading so I do
by dschep 9y ago
> - Vendor lock-in: although I try to minimise this and have a clear picture of where the lock-in lies, it is very much present.
The post isn't loading so I don't know exactly what it's in reference to (AWS lambda, the framework, the more generic idea?). But, the serverless framework[0] supports all major cloud providers (AWS, Google, & Azure) as well as self-hostable options like OpenWhisk and Kubeless.
[0] https://github.com/serverless/serverless https://github.com/serverless/serverless
- Vinnl 9y agoYes, but when I started putting this together it was very immature, as in: it crashed a lot. I didn't really want to lock myself in to an immature product either, and I also didn't really like having to run specific commands to get to a certain setup, rather than describing the layout of my desired infrastructure.
- debaserab2 9y agoI may be naive (or just witless), but don’t you kind of end up with vendor lock-in to serverless itself? The first step in their example is “login to your serverless account”.
- dvlsg 9y agoMy most recent serverless configuration file was probably approximately 90 percent aws specific (cloudformation) syntax anyways.
- icebraining 9y agoMaybe the image is outdated? The Quick Start doesn't seem to talk about Serverless accounts.
- dschep 9y agoYou have to make a choice at some level of the stack, for me, that was serverless as the deployment framework. You could probably use terraform or ansible + some custom scripts, but then you could argue you're locked into terraform or ansible ;) The login thing isn't actually necessary (or if it is, that's new)