3 ms·
Agreed. This was one of the most underwhelming conclusions to an article I've seen in a while. Given the domain name of the blog, I thought Deno was offering
by spiderice 3y ago
Agreed. This was one of the most underwhelming conclusions to an article I've seen in a while. Given the domain name of the blog, I thought Deno was offering some sort of next-generation webhook alternative that would actually be good. Instead, the "solutions" to webhooks (which are great, btw) are... workflow builders and in app IDEs? What the hell?
- crabmusket 3y agoThey kind of buried the lede: the alternative is their "subhosting". This is similar to Cloudflare's "workers for platforms", or some of Fermyon's former marketing. The idea is that your SaaS would offer an interface for your customers' developers to build integrations directly in your own product. I guess like building Zapier into your product.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoThank you for this, I certainly misunderstood it. But this just means my comment was correct: they're basically just highlighting that the downsides of webhooks are that the customer needs to run their own infrastructure, but here they are (essentially) arguing that it's better to build a plugin system on their platform. And that may all make sense! But framing it as "Webhooks suck" is such a bizarre choice to me, primarily because they have an extremely limited view of what webhooks are used for in the first place.