Thanks for all of the feedback, definitely a lot of gems I plan to act on!
> Nice. These are very useful feature and I can see myself subscribing for these. May I suggest you highlight these as the main features and demote, remove or re-word "not having to invest significant engineering resources in making a reliable webhook calling system" bit (not exact words). Just a suggestion, don't claim to know more about your business than you but as a possible customer, this claim being at the top would throw me off TBH.
The landing page needs improvements. I agree that this can come across a bit wrong.
> They definitely aren't and I know that from building some quite non-trivial ones and I did build some of those as libraries used across projects in the same company. Also, wouldn't my scale be the same irrespective of whether I call Diahook or anything else directly? I still need to make same amount of calls, have same queue, same retries etc.
The webhook system is another system you need to scale (including monitoring), it's not the same as your main system. You need to make sure that your queue and workers can handle the load, monitor backlog, and etc. I don't think it's quite the same.
> This should definitely be a concern for everyone unless missing outgoing webhooks is fine for a service and I agree Diahook wouldn't be any different which was my original comment. Sorry if I came across as dismissive. I was just pointing out how using something like this cannot be a reason to eschew fault tolerance in outgoing webhook code.
I was definitely too sloppy in my original comment, I didn't try to eschew fault tolerance, I know how important it is! What I was trying to say is that for people who care about this high level of fault tolerance already have systems in place for the rest of the APIs they use, and the people who don't, don't. I don't think it's substantially different to other critical APIs in that sense.
> Nice. These are very useful feature and I can see myself subscribing for these. May I suggest you highlight these as the main features and demote, remove or re-word "not having to invest significant engineering resources in making a reliable webhook calling system" bit (not exact words). Just a suggestion, don't claim to know more about your business than you but as a possible customer, this claim being at the top would throw me off TBH.
The landing page needs improvements. I agree that this can come across a bit wrong.
> They definitely aren't and I know that from building some quite non-trivial ones and I did build some of those as libraries used across projects in the same company. Also, wouldn't my scale be the same irrespective of whether I call Diahook or anything else directly? I still need to make same amount of calls, have same queue, same retries etc.
The webhook system is another system you need to scale (including monitoring), it's not the same as your main system. You need to make sure that your queue and workers can handle the load, monitor backlog, and etc. I don't think it's quite the same.
> This should definitely be a concern for everyone unless missing outgoing webhooks is fine for a service and I agree Diahook wouldn't be any different which was my original comment. Sorry if I came across as dismissive. I was just pointing out how using something like this cannot be a reason to eschew fault tolerance in outgoing webhook code.
I was definitely too sloppy in my original comment, I didn't try to eschew fault tolerance, I know how important it is! What I was trying to say is that for people who care about this high level of fault tolerance already have systems in place for the rest of the APIs they use, and the people who don't, don't. I don't think it's substantially different to other critical APIs in that sense.