AWS Lambda vs. Okta Workflows

Lambda excels at event-driven, short-lived tasks, such as processing files or building simple APIs. However, it's less ideal for long-running, computationally intensive, or applications that rely on carrying the state between jobs. Cold starts and constant load can easily balloon the costs.

Incentivized

Azuqua is well suited to connect data based systems or to add an extra level of automation to Smartsheet without requiring the control center. It is also well suited for people who don't have in depth understandings of programming. The UI is mostly visual with click and drag systems instead of requiring manually entered variables.

Incentivized

• No provisioning required - we don't have to pay anything upfront
• Serverless deployment - it gets executed only when request comes and we pay only for the time the request is getting executed
• Integrates well with AWS CloudWatch triggers so it is easy to setup scheduled tasks like cron jobs

Incentivized

• The concept of reduced code to simplify use by less technical teams lowers the barriers to integration and allows teams to collaborate with ideas and concepts much easier
• The ability to review simply any error cases simplifies the old approaches of debugging and reviewing large and complex logs
• While not strictly part of the platform the support team's efforts to assist, to help clarify issues and then (where necessary) to resolve bugs was a large benefit and a key driver to extend the platform's footprint.

Incentivized

• Developing test cases for Lambda functions can be difficult. For functions that require some sort of input it can be tough to develop the proper payload and event for a test.
• For the uninitiated, deploying functions with Infrastructure as Code tools can be a challenging undertaking.
• Logging the output of a function feels disjointed from running the function in the console. A tighter integration with operational logging would be appreciated, perhaps being able to view function logs from the Lambda console instead of having to navigate over to CloudWatch.
• Sometimes its difficult to determine the correct permissions needed for Lambda execution from other AWS services.

Incentivized

• The lack of connection/card documentation. Every card does have a section with details, but they are sometimes lacking.
• The help center and community also need some structuring work. Every single connection/app should have a section with detailed documentation regarding its triggers and actions.
• The FLO history section needs to be more refined. It sometimes does not load and choosing the date doesn't actually show execution results from that particular day.

Incentivized

I give it a seven is usability because it's AWS. Their UI's are always clunkier than the competition and their documentation is rather cumbersome. There's SO MUCH to dig through and it's a gamble if you actually end up finding the corresponding info if it will actually help. Like I said before, going to google with a specific problem is likely a better route because AWS is quite ubiquitous and chances are you're not the first to encounter the problem. That being said, using SAM (Serverless application model) and it's SAM Local environment makes running local instances of your Lambdas in dev environments painless and quite fun. Using Nodejs + Lambda + SAM Local + VS Code debugger = AWESOME.

Incentivized

The system is working as it should, keeping our programs safe from outside hackers. Helping us keep our passwords safe, convenient and already ready to get us logged into the program securely and quickly. Verification that only authorized users are able to access our company's programs. Okta Workflows (Azuqua) is a very good system that has helped our company greatly.

Incentivized

Amazon consistently provides comprehensive and easy-to-parse documentation of all AWS features and services. Most development team members find what they need with a quick internet search of the AWS documentation available online. If you need advanced support, though, you might need to engage an AWS engineer, and that could be an unexpected (or unwelcome) expense.

Incentivized

AWS Lambda is good for short running functions, and ideally in response to events within AWS. Google App Engine is a more robust environment which can have complex code running for long periods of time, and across more than one instance of hardware. Google App Engine allows for both front-end and back-end infrastructure, while AWS Lambda is only for small back-end functions

Incentivized

I had to use the Automate tool for funneling image assets in bulk (tens of thousands) from FTPs into various destinations on an eCommerce platform. The user interface was quite harsh in comparison to Azuqua. Far more text/code line driven.

Incentivized

• Positive - Only paying for when code is run, unlike virtual machines where you pay always regardless of processing power usage.
• Positive - Scalability and accommodating larger amounts of demand is much cheaper. Instead of scaling up virtual machines and increasing the prices you pay for that, you are just increasing the number of times your lambda function is run.
• Negative - Debugging/troubleshooting, and developing for lambda functions take a bit more time to get used to, and migrating code from virtual machines and normal processes to Lambda functions can take a bit of time.

Incentivized

• It is very good to maintain customers updated.
• It is good so we can not delay on our responses, and customers keep confidence in us.
• We are able to work multiple persons on a single case without having dificulties on finishing the tasks.

Incentivized