[dennisong]

Thanks, good to know of the alternate constraints in other companies. Pricing aside, indeed it would be a different challenge tech-wise to have this as an offline tool.

My motivation for building this stemmed from the use-case of smaller-medium dev teams. We were using offline tools (e.g. MySQL Workbench) as part of our dev process and trying to keep it updated as documentation. Which was quite a nightmare to keep in sync between different devs. In this case having a central server was the silver bullet.

Curious - do you all currently use other tools (eg: workbench) for this?

[evanelias]

It could be interesting to separate the visualization functionality from the syncing/sharing aspect.

For example, if you store the schema representation as a logical dump (CREATE statements) in a git repo, syncing/sharing becomes trivial. This also provides a branch workflow for collaborative editing, and the commit history serves as an authoritative changelog.

From this point of view, it could be compelling to have an offline visualization tool that simply operates on top of the current local filesystem state of a repo. Ideally this could be paired with a self-hosted server/daemon that can generate a visualization of any arbitrary commit of a remote repo on GitHub, GitLab, etc.

Disclosure: I'm the author of an open source schema management tool https://skeema.io which is designed to support a repo-driven workflow for DDL execution. So I have a heavy bias towards storing schemas declaratively, as repos of CREATE statements.

[derefr]

> Pricing aside, indeed it would be a different challenge tech-wise to have this as an offline tool.

Maybe not an offline tool, then, but rather a hostable server (or isolated enterprise deployment, if you must), rather than a central cloud service. A virtual-appliance Docker image (that you can keep updated upstream) would be ideal, I think.

[reacweb]

Maybe a docker image for rich clients.