troposphere VS redwood

Seems like an interesting generalized mix of something like https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere and Ansible from a glance.

The value add would be unifying provisioning and configuration management in a Python-y experience? The lifecycle of each is distinct and that's traditionally where the headaches of using a single tool for both has come in

Under the IaC category, in July 2023, AWS added loops to CloudFormation, finally ticking a box the community has been asking for since troposphere. I suspect that, in combination with the Terraform licensing changes, it may keep people using CloudFormation for a while longer.

Because ECS Compose-X uses Troposphere, I was able to create a very light and simple python library(https://github.com/JohnPreston/troposphere-awscommunity-applicationautoscaling-scheduledaction) to distribute the resource for other Troposphere users to re-use.

Written in house, but the library troposphere is the primary component of how it is built. Example stacks are here.

I am kind of going off topic here, but isn't the point of being an SA to be created with code services to deliver solutions at scale that are cost-effective? How in the hell can you do that when you can't write a simple Python template that generates code at 50 times the rate you can manually? How can you ever be expected to deploy a serverless solution if you can't write any code yourself? There has to be some level of proficiency there.

Wouldn't using troposphere[1] be easier?

[1] https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere

You might have seen some tutorials on how to set up S3 buckets using the AWS Console. This works fine, but I'm a firm believer of managing your resources with code. I've chosen the native solution of AWS, called AWS CloudFormation. This makes it easier to reproduce the setup if I ever need to tear it down of move it to another account or region. Below is the full CloudFormation template, I've used a framework called Troposphere, a Python library that creates CloudFormation.

For CF for example I no longer write template in yaml or shudders json, and instead I use troposphere.

refer : https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere

Frameworks are a theme with this month's Release Radar, so here's another. Redwood is a full-stack, JavaScript/TypeScript web application, designed to scale with you. It uses React frontend for the frontend and links to a custom GraphQL API for the backend. The latest version includes a bunch of breaking changes such as moving to Node 20.0, the Redwood Studio, and highly requested GraphQL features such as Realtime, Fragments, and Trusted Documents, the server file, new router hooks, and heaps more. If you've previously used Redwood, you'll probably want to upgrade to version 7.0. The team have put together a handy migration guide for you to follow.

The other piece of important information to acknowledge here is that when we say RSCs need a framework, “framework” effectively just means “Next.js.” There are some smaller frameworks (like Waku) that support RSCs. There are also some larger and more established frameworks (like Redwood) that have plans to support RSCs or (like Gatsby) only support RSCs in beta. We will likely see this change once we get React 19 and RSCs are part of the Stable version. However, for now, Next.js is currently the only framework recommended in the official React docs that supports server components.

Although there are quite a few opinionated battery-included frameworks that have picked up everything for you like RedwoodJS, Blitz, and Create-T3-App, you still need to choose between them and hope that they will remain mainstream and well-maintained in the future. So how should we choose?

Web development frameworks in JavaScript, such as NextJS and RedwoodJS, have gained popularity among developers. Choosing the right framework, library, or tool for a project is crucial for efficient development. Developers often seek the best tools to save time and avoid reinventing the wheel.

The community here is pretty friendly. https://redwoodjs.com/

Next.js 13 ignited the first wave of attention to React Server Components (RSC) around the end of last year. Over time, other frameworks, like Remix and RedwoodJS, have also started to put RSC into their future road maps. However, the entire "moving computation to the server-side" direction of React/Next.js has been highly controversial from the very beginning.

I'm currently experimenting with the fantastic Redwood framework. However, while going through the excellent tutorial, I didn't find any guidance on using data validation libraries like Yup, Zod, Vest, etc. So, I had to do some investigation and came up with a solution. This article describes the implementation of validation with Zod in a fresh Redwood app. You can find the sources at this github repository.

RBAC is one of the most common authorization models - users are assigned different roles, and resource access privileges are controlled at the role level. Despite its limitations, RBAC is a popular choice for simple applications, and some frameworks (like RedwoodJS) have built-in support for it.

Check it out here: https://redwoodjs.com/