Trood Core Compared to other options

[SONAIII]

Comparison with other options

Classic frameworks (Django, Laravel, Rails)

• Pros of frameworks: Large ecosystems, many plugins, extensive communities.
• Cons: You need to manually (or via generators) describe models, migrations, routes. Although there is CRUD generation, there is no single "out of the box" mail module with threads or a full-fledged file generator (you need to add third-party plugins and deal with their support).
• ABAC will have to be tweaked through additional libraries (most often the standard is RBAC).
• Trood Core is more "ready-made" for complex "corporate" services: mail, files, metadata, migrations, ABAC — all under one roof.

Custom microservice architecture + external services

• Pros: Complete freedom — choose any database, authorization, file handling library, mail service.
• Cons: A lot of integration code is needed (Kafka, HTTP service, IAM like Keycloak/Auth0, S3/MinIO, Postgres + Liquibase, etc.).
• Support and updates are distributed across many solutions → potential version conflicts, complex DevOps setup.
• Trood Core — fewer integrations: one ecosystem, one approach to metadata, migrations, endpoints.

Low-code/No-code platforms

• Pros: You can click around, quickly create prototypes.
• Cons: For "serious" corporate requirements (complex processes, strict security requirements, extensibility), you often hit limitations.
• Trood Core allows writing full-fledged code while eliminating routine at the level of CRUD, files, mail, and authorization. Much more flexible for customization than No-code.

Using AI tools (e.g., Cursor, ChatGPT/Copilot)

• What do AI tools offer?: Boilerplate code generation, SQL hints, etc.
• Comparison with Trood Core:
  • AI tools help write code faster, but you are still responsible for integration, structure, and testing.
  • Trood Core doesn’t just generate code. It already contains ready-made services and API endpoints that don’t require constant generation and manual maintenance.
  • Instead of "generating CRUD on Node.js + Express + Sequelize," you describe fields in metadata, and Custodian provides everything, while AI can assist in integration scenarios (logic, business rules) but doesn’t replace the platform’s model level.
• Win: Trood Core + AI tools can be combined for even faster results (AI writes part of the business logic, but you don’t need to write basic CRUD/files/mail code).
• If you only use AI, you still have to design the architecture manually, decide how to store files, where to get mail modules, etc. Trood already solves these issues.

Performance and scaling considerations

• Custodian can handle load using PostgreSQL as a reliable backend.
• File Service and Mail Service can be scaled independently (vertically or horizontally).
• The database (PostgreSQL) can be scaled either to a more powerful machine or sharded (this is already a detail of corporate infrastructure).
• In most cases, the bottleneck is a properly configured Postgres cluster/caching, not Custodian or File Service.

Brief summary

• Trood Core simplifies the developer’s life: provides a ready-made foundation (data, files, mail, authorization).
• Less boilerplate — you can focus on project specifics (business logic, UI, integrations).
• Microservice model: easy to add your own services/modules.
• ABAC, 2FA, REST "out of the box": convenient for corporate systems.
• Main benefit: Rapid development and prototyping (reduced timelines).
• Stable architecture: a unified ecosystem for CRUD, mail, files, and authorization.
• Flexibility for future changes (migrations, dynamic model, access rights configuration).

Comparing Trood Core with classic frameworks, custom microservices, or AI code generators, the main takeaway is: Trood services already solve standard tasks at an advanced level, rather than just generating templates. This reduces development and maintenance costs without limiting you in further customizations.