The announcement of the imminent closure of Parse has been a huge shock to developers. While many of these app developers are incredibly confused about how to cope, others have taken the news in stride and pitched their tents elsewhere. Some developers are even considering either self-hosting their own Parse Servers or choosing other MBaaS (different from Parse).
If like most developers you are still trying to decide on a Parse Server provider for your online application, then you will benefit greatly from the following analyses. First, it is necessary to note that the only way to safeguard and preserve your data is by migrating your apps to another Parse Server host. And time is fast running out.
But while you’re still trying to choose from a list of solutions, let’s compare the differences between Parse.com and Parse server. These key differences will be analyzed based on ease of deployment, syntax upgrades, available features, management interface, serviceability, control and connection and so on. If you are wondering why it is important to compare the Parse-server with the scheduled-for-shutdown Parse.com, here is one good reason: A comparison of both models will help you prepare for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.
Looking back, developers will remember that Parse.com comprised of the following essential core components: cloud-based processing system, web-based dashboard, PUSH Service and Analytic Systems.
Although developers are hopeful of some improvement, the open source Parse Server does not yet provide the full suite of functionality. Many providers such as Back4App are working tirelessly with the community to provide additional support for these incompatibilities by contributing to the open source repository.
-
Management Interface
It is important for developers to note that Parse server doesn’t have an internal dashboard like Parse.com. Developers must consider this when planning to develop and deploy apps,
Although Parse released an open-source version of the Web-based Dashboard, app developers may be required to do a lot more work than was required on Parse.com.
-
Control & Connection
After migrating from Parse.com to Parse-server, every developer should compare the change in the app connection. Connecting to the server is a lot easier in self-hosted Parse servers. At least, you would have avoided the hurdle of having to create a REST-key and so on.
If you are a developer who likes a lot of control over applications, you’d absolutely love the Parse-server. Not only will the suite of new features and options excite you, you will also enjoy the liberty to modify the server codes as often as you want
Don’t get too carried away with the flexibility of the open source version. Consider, on the other hand, the upsurge in maintenance work this liberty might bring. Where the Parse.com team handled all the server maintenance work, the case is very different with the open source server. The developers and their teams will now be responsible for this crucial maintenance work.
-
Simplicity of deployment
Parse.com provided a more straightforward solution for the creation and deployment of apps. All it took was an easy click of a button.
Things are a bit different on the Parse-server. In fact, deployment is a lot more complex. After a manual configuration of the Parse-server and database server, the developer is also required to host these two servers in a PaaS or IaaS before deployment can be completed.
What’s more? All updates on the Parse server and DB code will have to be manually uploaded to the servers.
-
Features
It is crucial to know the differences, incompatibilities and missing features in the Parse server
Apart from the dedicated dashboard, the Parse server contains most features that can be found on Parse.com. However, Cloud Job and Webhooks have to be added yourself.
But the Parse server also has some advantages feature-wise. While this open-source version provides features like Livequery, Parse.com doesn’t offer this query which can be updated simultaneously. There are wide ranges of opportunities to explore features that aren’t available on Parse.com. Most developers are excited about the feature that permits the inclusion of NodeJS modules to the server.
-
Syntax Updates
Regrettably, the syntax varies in some part of Parse.com and the Parse server. This difference in syntax is more obvious in Code Cloud. In the user identification, it is no longer possible to utilize the Parse.User.current() code. To acquire user info, the attribute request.user has to be employed.
You need different syntaxes to delete objects in Parse Cloud Code that you would in the Parse server Cloud Code.
-
Cost and Budget
It is impossible to compare both solutions without considering the obvious difference in the prices. Where Parse.com required a developer to pay for just one server, the open source version requires payment for two servers.
Remember that the development team will handle all server maintenance. And if you’re choosing the self-hosting option, you’ll have to rely on a team of developers to develop features. This will ultimately require a bigger budget. At some point, you might remember the good old days when Parse.com regularly added features to the server.
Consider the scalability options. In Parse.com your apps were automatically scaled as the need arose. This option won’t be available in a self-hosting option. Only manual scalability will be possible.
-
Serviceability
Serviceability is very important. Many reliable companies use Parse-related solutions. An example of such companies is Back4App. It is easier and better to settle for a company that is seeking to continue the model that Parse.com created.
Such a solution would make migration incredibly easy for developers. Again, such companies are likely to develop (and contribute) new features for the Parse-server. Their fees are likely to be more reasonable than those at Parse.com.
But for the planned shutdown, Parse.com seems to rank higher on the serviceability scale. It allows developers to focus on app development rather than being distracted by the logistics of maintenance and the development of features.