3 ms·
I don't mean to be negative, but just two cents of feedback: I believe (could be wrong) many developers would be worried about using this. Seems to me you're
by rmbyrro 5y ago
I don't mean to be negative, but just two cents of feedback:
I believe (could be wrong) many developers would be worried about using this.
Seems to me you're a small shop (?). AWS can get away with a proprietary DB API like DynamoDB's. They are big and can provide strong assurances.
Since SFSQL is just starting out, by a small shop, it would be a high risk to rely on it being a closed source, proprietary API.
Might be worth thinking about how you're going to address such concerns. Must have something really strong to support.
- dfragnito 5y agoIn a self hosted model developers would host SFSQL on their own infrastructure, which could be AWS, Google, Azure, DO, etc.. There is no reliance on us. Yes we are maintaining the API and underlying implementation. Software is a Service thus the subscription model.
- rmbyrro 5y agoYeah, I totally agree that providing the self-hosted option is a big plus. Covers maintainability concerns at least in the short term. Some might still be worried about long-term security & bug fixing, support, etc.