> Once your service sees load you will want this badly.
> [...]
> The failure of one server is no longer a material concern to your operation.
Elsewhere in thread you say:
> The event volume is not particularly large as we tend to process things in batch and rarely on the edge of an event.
So the service is not actually under load, and it runs in batches so (temporary) failure is not actually a concern.
> This work took me 3 days. It's paid off 1000x fold since I did it.
Since Lambda was introduced less than 10 years ago, what you're saying here is that it'd be full time job for you for the past 10 years to maintain this (3000 days instead of three) if you have not gone the serverless way, which I find doubtful.
> Could this have been simplified into something far more fragile than what is described? Absolutely.
Considering the hyperboles in the rest of your comment, this sounds more like snark than a considered opinion.
Elsewhere in thread you say:
> The event volume is not particularly large as we tend to process things in batch and rarely on the edge of an event.
So the service is not actually under load, and it runs in batches so (temporary) failure is not actually a concern.
> This work took me 3 days. It's paid off 1000x fold since I did it.
Since Lambda was introduced less than 10 years ago, what you're saying here is that it'd be full time job for you for the past 10 years to maintain this (3000 days instead of three) if you have not gone the serverless way, which I find doubtful.
> Could this have been simplified into something far more fragile than what is described? Absolutely.
Considering the hyperboles in the rest of your comment, this sounds more like snark than a considered opinion.