The State Changers discussed a query related to transferring data from Xano to Azure Database to conduct more analytics based on the data. They deliberated whether the data transfer should be initiated from Xano or Azure. The consensus was that the process should involve both push and pull mechanisms. They agreed on continuously updating Azure with new data in Xano. To avoid slowing down transactions, this process should ideally happen in a post process or as part of a frequently running background task.
Furthermore, they explored how to maintain data integrity and quick response times by separating the main transactional database from the data synchronization process. They highlighted the importance of preventing Azure from directly pulling data from the transaction table in Xano to avoid slowing down the transactional database. Instead, as transactions are made in Xano, an additional table should be created that records the specifics of each transaction. This table acts as a to-do list for Azure, providing it with a set of instructions for data synchronization. The data will then be marked as 'done' once the synchronization is complete, and optionally, those marked entries could be later deleted. The meeting also had the State Changers discuss the three types of changes that could occur in the tables - creating a new record, editing an existing one, and deleting a record - and how these updates can be efficiently sent to Azure using API calls. Therefore, they proposed that all updates be wrapped into a function, making it easier to manage updates and their corresponding synchronization log entries. No explicit mention has been made of the following topics: WeWeb, FlutterFlow, Zapier, Make, Integromat, Outseta, Retool, Bubble, Adalo, AppGyver, AppSheet, Comnoco, Fastgen, Firebase, Google, OAuth, Stripe, Twilio, Airtable, DraftBit, Javascript, Typescript, React, Vue.js, JSX, HTML, CSS, lambda, serverless, State Change, ScriptTag, OpenAI, AI21.
(Source: Office Hours 10/5/2023 AM )
