|
|
|
|
|
|
by turtles3
1036 days ago
|
|
|
> Additionally, there are folks using SpiceDB today by replicating denormalized checks back into their database (e.g. Postgres) or search index (e.g. Elastic) so that you can filter them natively. This is the combination of the aforementioned Lookup APIs with our Watch API. While this strategy requires moving parts, it is necessary beyond a particular scale which is well beyond the point at which policy engines typically fall over. Would you say that because of this, Zanzibar engines like spicedb only become useful on systems of a certain size / complexity? Fundamentally you run into data synchronization issues whether you are syncing denormalized data back to your db via Watch or whether you write the relationships to both data stores in the first place. This article[0] on the latter topic touches on this, but brushes over some tricker parts of implementing such a thing correctly (eg. 2 writes section only covers insert not update or delete which is generally less harmful to have a ghost update that persists in spicedb, streaming updates brushes over some major footguns). Granted there's nothing unique to spicedb in this sort of complexity, but by nature of being a db, using spicedb mandates that users must take on the complexity. Is it then fair to say that it is appropriate to use spicedb once a project reaches a certain size / complexity, or would you expect a startup to adopt it from the beginning? [0] https://authzed.com/blog/writing-relationships-to-spicedb |
|
|
The Watch and Lookup APIs emit revisions so that any replicated data can include revisions to guarantee consistency. The linked article covers replicating data into SpiceDB and not the other way around; this is generally done for brown-field projects and does come with consistency trade-offs.
It's true that this complexity isn't unique to SpiceDB. The important part is that SpiceDB makes this _possible_ because if you architect a solution where it isn't, you'll find one day you've backed yourself into a corner.
>Is it then fair to say that it is appropriate to use spicedb once a project reaches a certain size / complexity, or would you expect a startup to adopt it from the beginning?
I briefly touch on this subject a bit in this post[0]. Unfortunately, there's no dead simple answer. We do have customers that are startups in various stages, but they all deeply considered the implications of focusing on authorization before they jumped in. IME, startups really need to find product market fit first. Build your MVP using whatever it takes and and only move on to thinking about authorization when it becomes critical. When is it critical, but not too late? I think that's once you start noticing that each PR implementing a feature request is also touching authorization code/SQL. There are also other big signals: microservices architecture or enterprise customers are almost certain indicators that your authorization logic isn't going to remain a small library in your monolith.
[0]: https://authzed.com/blog/authz-must-scale