And it seems their misnomer is practically everywhere, not just in the Show HN: their website also mislabels their links as "Open Source" - I guess trying to capitalize on SEO
Seems they had a change of heart around 2022: https://github.com/inngest/inngest/pull/81 but they actually only started lying about the license in this go-around because their previous Show HN <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36403014> not only didn't mislabel things but they even said "we're gonna open source in the future" but I guess the future isn't here yet
There might be a bit of misunderstanding on what's in that git repo here. It actually contains the executor, state store, queue, and our production UI, plus the syncing, registration, and logic for functions.
Earlier this year we didn't want folks to roll their own production cloud due to queueing migrations. It would make your life hard. We're entirely responsible for that right now, as we discouraged self hosting.
That's actually coming to a close, and we'll make it easy to spin up prod clusters using this code and eg. MemoryDB, Dragonfly, or what have you.
Well, my experience has been closer to the "more eyes make for shallow bugs" school of thought, so opening the source to contributions would actually help that process, not hinder it
I've written quite a lot of CI for projects because it's something I believe in and am willing to roll up my sleeves to get done (as a concrete example). I believe strongly that being able to reference the canonical CI build helps contributors since they can see how it's built for different systems and also ensure they don't submit "works on my machine" patches
I implemented Inngest to handle our video migration queues that help move videos off of other platforms into Mux -- complete breeze. Loved the balance between the amount of complexity that's abstracted away, but still enough of a surface API exposed to do some pretty custom domain-specific work. Also the support was top notch, that goes a long way. A++, would use again, genuinely a fan.
Congrats, definitely an area we're always examining tools
Afaict, this seems like a more restrictively licensed & less capable alternative to Dagster and Prefect. However, there may be some specific areas it is ahead -- the multitenancy bullet point sounds interesting, for example. Maybe you can share a comparative description?
Used this for a short while and the dev experience was great (the console in particular which allowed for copying events to reproduce them locally). The typescript integration was good.
My only issue was that the execution of an inngest function wasn't completely intuitive, at least in TS, and you have to think in terms of inngest or, more precisely, the abstraction it is providing. Is it an actor, a step function, an event consumer, a saga? or a combination of some?
When you get used to it it's nice, less overhead than building your own actor model or your own event sources, and really good visibility into what is happening.
> My only issue was that the execution of an inngest function wasn't completely intuitive, at least in TS, and you have to think in terms of inngest or, more precisely, the abstraction it is providing. Is it an actor, a step function, an event consumer, a saga? or a combination of some?
I'm personally curious about this. I'm not saying you don't, but why would you need to understand what kind of abstraction it is beyond it just being Inngest"? I like to think I've been able to use it effectively without this having ever crossed my mind. But I also just might be dumb. Hence the curiosity!
Because code doesn't execute as you might think it does, which is why Inngest has docs describing best practices.
You have to be careful about how you structure effectful code and how you might share data between steps, and you have to understand when that code might be executed, so the more you know about that, the better. Inngest itself, at least with Vercel, doesn't do its own compute.
Inngest, as far as I know, does not do its own compute, it piggybacks on your own, so if you're not careful you can go hard with inngest but you'll see the impact on your hosting bill; especially with Vercel.
Inngest is a breath of fresh air but, you know, you have to audit your dependencies whether they're SaaS or not. Know how they work, know how to debug them, know how much they'll cost you.
I've been looking into this space since I learned about Temporal recently, and I wonder if it would be better to have this integrated in my application, as a library, instead of an external dependency. This way, all the state would be in the same DB.
Wow, I had no idea you weren’t at 1.0 yet lol. I’ve been using Inngest for a few years(!) and it’s always felt really polished and complete to me.
Congrats on the big one-oh. Question: I’ve been using Rust a lot more lately — does Inngest work natively with Rust? Is there an SDK or another way to use it?
Thanks! There are a few things at play. High level, it's important to note we provide infra for you — so our multi-tenancy supports many tenants for every user.
In general, fairness means distributing work evenly amongst all accounts. This largely means partitioned queues. Firstly, every functions have their own queues. We have queues of queues: queues of functions available. And then we have queues of accounts. And so on. It's like nesting dolls all the way down.
There are lots of really fine details to get right: continuations, step parallelism, `connect()` with long running workers all mess with fairness, as do batching, debounce, throttling.
There are similarities with "durable workflows" but, honestly, a completely different approach. Lots of respect for them.
A few critical things:
* Inngest is primarily event driven. You send an event, we run one or more functions.
* Events give you lots of benefits: batching, rate limiting, replay, archiving, fan-out, etc.
* You also get a powerful event-based API in functions: `step.waitForEvent`. This lets you do a lot of things: human in the loop flows, coordination — and you don't have to learn complex APIs, worry about state, can handle timeouts easily.
* And events also let you connect things like webhooks, CDC, external systems to functions with basically zero overhead.
* Because of this, you can pause individual functions, then redrive events through specific functions - as events are stored for you in an OLAP event store for your workspace.
Fundamentally, in terms of DX:
* You don't have to register individual activities and workflows. Steps are lambdas. It's easy to work with
* Every step (activity) has an ID, which means versioning, replay, determinism is easier to reason about and see in our model.
* We also run on servers as well as serverless. It's actually quite nice bringing state and retries to serverless functions - they're good for (some) bursty workloads
* We also embed a bunch of flow control into the system for you.
Overall, both replace queueing systems. I think that's a good thing: you shouldn't really have to think about the specifics of your underlying infra when you're writing application code.
Foremost, thank you for the detailed answer. It's always helpful to have competitive analysis from the source
While the edit window on your comment is still open, you may want to consider removing the leading whitespace from your bullet points (since they're already newline delimited) because on HN those leading spaces make it pre-formatted and that means folks on mobile have to horizontally scroll to see your whole sentence
Congrats this is huge! I've been in the market looking for a tool like this and was curious to know how this compares against toolings such as Temporal (https://temporal.io/product) or Trigger.dev(https://trigger.dev/) ?
The TL;DR is both us and Temporal help with durable execution. We layer on events and a differing DX to make things easier, faster, and to also work on serverless if people need.
I can't speak to Trigger, as they've changed a lot since I last looked. It doesn't look like they do durable execution, workflows, steps, or events — it looks like they're an alternative to Lambda + SQS for TS only, so very different — more for your simple "run one thing in the background", from what I can gather. Take this with a grain of salt, though!
Really great product, I'm using inngest since 2-3 months and it definitely solved our problem. We needed a scheduling, queue, trigger solution. The docs are fairly good and it worked after some fiddling with our setup. I can quickly see every morning if all the jobs went through, we also starting to use them for webhooks now. Very happy, wrote at least 10 different functions in typescript so far
Looking at the License - This is not Open Source, but rather Source Available software.
Looks great but do not appreciate deceptive marketing
And it seems their misnomer is practically everywhere, not just in the Show HN: their website also mislabels their links as "Open Source" - I guess trying to capitalize on SEO
SSPLv1 for anyone similarly interested https://github.com/inngest/inngest/blob/v1.0.0/LICENSE.md
Seems they had a change of heart around 2022: https://github.com/inngest/inngest/pull/81 but they actually only started lying about the license in this go-around because their previous Show HN <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36403014> not only didn't mislabel things but they even said "we're gonna open source in the future" but I guess the future isn't here yet
We'll roll out a change that releases source as GPL after 3-4 years next week, actually. I do appreciate these comments and points.
Is there any guarantee ("don't take promise from a company") the license won't be changed to something more closed some time afterwards?
Why is it necessary to wait? You've already seen the feedback, if you're going to change the license, why promise to do it later?
It's already planned, and rushing out a legal change on a Friday night ahead of plans is less than ideal.
And the production infra for running isn't even available, just a pared down "development server" via SSPL. This is a long way from OSS.
There might be a bit of misunderstanding on what's in that git repo here. It actually contains the executor, state store, queue, and our production UI, plus the syncing, registration, and logic for functions.
Earlier this year we didn't want folks to roll their own production cloud due to queueing migrations. It would make your life hard. We're entirely responsible for that right now, as we discouraged self hosting.
That's actually coming to a close, and we'll make it easy to spin up prod clusters using this code and eg. MemoryDB, Dragonfly, or what have you.
Well, my experience has been closer to the "more eyes make for shallow bugs" school of thought, so opening the source to contributions would actually help that process, not hinder it
I've written quite a lot of CI for projects because it's something I believe in and am willing to roll up my sleeves to get done (as a concrete example). I believe strongly that being able to reference the canonical CI build helps contributors since they can see how it's built for different systems and also ensure they don't submit "works on my machine" patches
Agree. This is absolutely deceptive. It's too bad how the OSS moniker is being misused these days...
I implemented Inngest to handle our video migration queues that help move videos off of other platforms into Mux -- complete breeze. Loved the balance between the amount of complexity that's abstracted away, but still enough of a surface API exposed to do some pretty custom domain-specific work. Also the support was top notch, that goes a long way. A++, would use again, genuinely a fan.
Congrats, definitely an area we're always examining tools
Afaict, this seems like a more restrictively licensed & less capable alternative to Dagster and Prefect. However, there may be some specific areas it is ahead -- the multitenancy bullet point sounds interesting, for example. Maybe you can share a comparative description?
Used this for a short while and the dev experience was great (the console in particular which allowed for copying events to reproduce them locally). The typescript integration was good.
My only issue was that the execution of an inngest function wasn't completely intuitive, at least in TS, and you have to think in terms of inngest or, more precisely, the abstraction it is providing. Is it an actor, a step function, an event consumer, a saga? or a combination of some?
When you get used to it it's nice, less overhead than building your own actor model or your own event sources, and really good visibility into what is happening.
> My only issue was that the execution of an inngest function wasn't completely intuitive, at least in TS, and you have to think in terms of inngest or, more precisely, the abstraction it is providing. Is it an actor, a step function, an event consumer, a saga? or a combination of some?
I'm personally curious about this. I'm not saying you don't, but why would you need to understand what kind of abstraction it is beyond it just being Inngest"? I like to think I've been able to use it effectively without this having ever crossed my mind. But I also just might be dumb. Hence the curiosity!
Because code doesn't execute as you might think it does, which is why Inngest has docs describing best practices.
You have to be careful about how you structure effectful code and how you might share data between steps, and you have to understand when that code might be executed, so the more you know about that, the better. Inngest itself, at least with Vercel, doesn't do its own compute.
Inngest, as far as I know, does not do its own compute, it piggybacks on your own, so if you're not careful you can go hard with inngest but you'll see the impact on your hosting bill; especially with Vercel.
Inngest is a breath of fresh air but, you know, you have to audit your dependencies whether they're SaaS or not. Know how they work, know how to debug them, know how much they'll cost you.
Congrats! I used Inngest when I wrote a video processing pipeline here https://github.com/tigrisdata-community/multi-modal-starter-...
Amazing devEx. Thanks so much for all the work and enabling a local mode too
I've been looking into this space since I learned about Temporal recently, and I wonder if it would be better to have this integrated in my application, as a library, instead of an external dependency. This way, all the state would be in the same DB.
If your application is Python or TS based, you can check out the DBOS libraries, which do that.
Restate.dev seems to offer a different implementation of the same feature set, and I think I might like their durable execution syntax more.
Their syntax does look strikingly similar to the API we launched with a couple of years ago: `ctx.run("id", () => {})` vs `step.run("id", () => {})`.
It's good to see the ecosystem form around the APIs we've developed. From feedback we've received, they're easy to use.
Wow, I had no idea you weren’t at 1.0 yet lol. I’ve been using Inngest for a few years(!) and it’s always felt really polished and complete to me.
Congrats on the big one-oh. Question: I’ve been using Rust a lot more lately — does Inngest work natively with Rust? Is there an SDK or another way to use it?
Congrats on the launch! I am curious, how does your multitenant system work? And how do you ensure fairness?
Thanks! There are a few things at play. High level, it's important to note we provide infra for you — so our multi-tenancy supports many tenants for every user.
In general, fairness means distributing work evenly amongst all accounts. This largely means partitioned queues. Firstly, every functions have their own queues. We have queues of queues: queues of functions available. And then we have queues of accounts. And so on. It's like nesting dolls all the way down.
There are lots of really fine details to get right: continuations, step parallelism, `connect()` with long running workers all mess with fairness, as do batching, debounce, throttling.
We wrote about it in some detail here: https://www.inngest.com/blog/building-the-inngest-queue-pt-i.... We'll probably do some deeper dives on this next year, too!
what is the difference from https://temporal.io/
There are similarities with "durable workflows" but, honestly, a completely different approach. Lots of respect for them.
A few critical things:
* Inngest is primarily event driven. You send an event, we run one or more functions.
* Events give you lots of benefits: batching, rate limiting, replay, archiving, fan-out, etc.
* You also get a powerful event-based API in functions: `step.waitForEvent`. This lets you do a lot of things: human in the loop flows, coordination — and you don't have to learn complex APIs, worry about state, can handle timeouts easily.
* And events also let you connect things like webhooks, CDC, external systems to functions with basically zero overhead.
* Because of this, you can pause individual functions, then redrive events through specific functions - as events are stored for you in an OLAP event store for your workspace.
Fundamentally, in terms of DX:
* You don't have to register individual activities and workflows. Steps are lambdas. It's easy to work with
* Every step (activity) has an ID, which means versioning, replay, determinism is easier to reason about and see in our model.
* We also run on servers as well as serverless. It's actually quite nice bringing state and retries to serverless functions - they're good for (some) bursty workloads
* We also embed a bunch of flow control into the system for you.
Overall, both replace queueing systems. I think that's a good thing: you shouldn't really have to think about the specifics of your underlying infra when you're writing application code.
Foremost, thank you for the detailed answer. It's always helpful to have competitive analysis from the source
While the edit window on your comment is still open, you may want to consider removing the leading whitespace from your bullet points (since they're already newline delimited) because on HN those leading spaces make it pre-formatted and that means folks on mobile have to horizontally scroll to see your whole sentence
What are open source alternatives to this? Can temporal.io do the same things?
Congrats this is huge! I've been in the market looking for a tool like this and was curious to know how this compares against toolings such as Temporal (https://temporal.io/product) or Trigger.dev(https://trigger.dev/) ?
Answered this in depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41605220
The TL;DR is both us and Temporal help with durable execution. We layer on events and a differing DX to make things easier, faster, and to also work on serverless if people need.
I can't speak to Trigger, as they've changed a lot since I last looked. It doesn't look like they do durable execution, workflows, steps, or events — it looks like they're an alternative to Lambda + SQS for TS only, so very different — more for your simple "run one thing in the background", from what I can gather. Take this with a grain of salt, though!
Congrats on the launch! Can’t wait to see what you guys launch next week.
Are there plans beyond workflow? (For context I enjoy Inngest already :)
This looks great. Do you have an ETA for a Ruby SDK?
Really great product, I'm using inngest since 2-3 months and it definitely solved our problem. We needed a scheduling, queue, trigger solution. The docs are fairly good and it worked after some fiddling with our setup. I can quickly see every morning if all the jobs went through, we also starting to use them for webhooks now. Very happy, wrote at least 10 different functions in typescript so far
No option to self-host?
Our launch week starts on Monday. There's something coming, with a full roadmap for differing DBs, multi-node setups, and metrics :)
I’m excited to try it! Sounds like a great platform