spin VS mats3

For example, here's a snippet of my Git config for the spin repository:

We built (and open-sourced) Spin to make the developer experience easier, and we want to show you this through Fermyon's Advent of Spin. You will be presented with fun coding challenges that'll help you learn to build with Spin and WebAssembly.

Fermyon Spin is the open source tool for building serverless functions with WebAssembly. We’re going to use a few Spin commands to go from blinking cursor to deployed app in just a few minutes. Along the way, we’ll walk through a Spin project and see some of the features of Spin 2.0.

linky: https://github.com/fermyon/spin#readme (Apache 2; and while I don't see any CLA, interestingly they do require GPG signed commits: https://developer.fermyon.com/spin/contributing-spin#committ... )

To install the binary file on Windows, download the Windows binary release, unzip the file, and place the spin.exe file in your system path.

We are delighted to introduce Spin 1.0, the first stable release of the open source developer tool for building serverless applications with WebAssembly (Wasm)! Since we first introduced Spin last year, we have been hard at work together with the community on building a frictionless developer experience for building and running serverless applications with Wasm.

“Waggy is used for writing WAGI (WebAssembly Gateway Interface) compliant API routers/individual handlers. WAGI was developed by deislabs for accepting and routing incoming HTTP requests with WebAssembly via a configuration file (modules.toml) defining routes, modules, volumes to be mounted, etc. WAGI can run as a stand alone server, or with a framework such as the Fermyon/Spin framework Go SDK. Waggy allows for the flexibility of handling the routing via the modules.toml, or to define it code (Waggy is written in Go), as well as various pieces of convenient functionality such as the new features described above!!”

They’re VC-funded and will vendor lock-in you. See their response to my discussion:

https://github.com/fermyon/spin/discussions/861

With WasmEdge there is no vendor lock-in, it’s opaque and standards-based

What language do you want? And how experimental are you wanting to go? This project is crazy cool https://github.com/fermyon/spin , but might be harder to work with if you’re not willing to use rust :p, think they might have made it easy for c# too though

The “restart from where it failed”-aspect was a big reason for why I made Mats3. It is message-based, async, transactional, staged stateless services, or message-oriented asynchronous RPC. Due to the transactionality, and the “state lives on the wire”, if a flow fails, it can be restarted from where it left off.

https://mats3.io

I am truly finding it hard to explain it. I have tried along a dozen angles. I actually think it is a completely new concept - and that might be the problem.

There is an illustration on the front-page: https://mats3.io/

Here's a set of small answers to "What is Mats?": https://github.com/centiservice/mats3/blob/main/README.md#wh...

Here's a way to code up Mats3 endpoints using JBang and a small toolkit which makes it extremely simple to explore the ideas: https://github.com/centiservice/mats3/blob/main/README.md#wh...

If you read these and then get it, I would be extremely happy if you gave me a sentence or paragraph that would have led you to understanding faster!

The use of JMS is just a transport. I could really have used anything, incl. any MQ, or ZeroMQ, or plain TCP - or just a shared table in a database.

Wrt. WebSockets, that is a transport typically between a server, and a end-user client, e.g. an iOS App. Actually, there's also a "sister project", MatsSockets, that bring the utter async-ness of Mats3 all the way out to the client, e.g. a webpage or an app. https://matssocket.io/

NATS is just a message queue, with some ability to orchestrate. I do not like this concept of orchestration as an external service, that is one of the founding ideas of Mats3: Do the orchestration within each service, as you would do if you employed REST as the ISC mechanism.

Read more about mats3 here: https://mats3.io/

I've made a Java library to facilitate the latter. https://mats3.io/ - you can start reading here: https://mats3.io/docs/message-oriented-rpc/, or test out some code right away, using JBang, here: https://mats3.io/explore/jbang-mats/

I have explained about this on the frontpage of Mats3: https://mats3.io/, and more in-depth in the first step of the "Walkthrough": https://mats3.io/docs/message-oriented-rpc/ - and even more into it at "Rationale for Mats", here: https://mats3.io/background/rationale-for-mats/

JBang’s tagline: “Lets Students, Educators and Professional Developers create, edit and run self-contained source-only Java programs with unprecedented ease.”

Mats3’s tagline: “Message-Oriented Async RPC. Message-based Interservice Communication made easy! Naturally resilient and highly available microservices, with great DevX and OpsX.”

JBang is a cool "execute single Java source file with dependencies" solution, which offers a simple way to test new libraries. The article tries to showcase Mats3's core concepts through a series of JBang scripts.

To streamline the process, a small library called 'MatsJbangKit' has been developed, which not only takes care of pulling up the Mats infrastructure but also depends on all the necessary dependencies. This means users only need to reference this single library in their JBang scripts. The aim is to pique curiosity and inspire further exploration of Mats3 and its potential.

If you like it, a star on Github would be much appreciated: https://github.com/centiservice/mats3

This is a "tack on"-tool to the otherwise fully async nature of Mats/messaging.

> For this to really work well, the message passing has to be integrated with the CPU dispatcher

It sounds like you are 100% set on speed. This is not really what Mats is after - it is meant as a inter-service communcation system, and IO will be your limiting factor at any rate. Mats sacrifices a bit of speed for developer ergonomics - the idea is that by easily enabling fully async development of ISC in a complex microservice system, you gain back that potential loss from a) actually being able to use fully async processing (!), and b) the inherent speed of messaging (it is at least as fast as HTTP, and you avoid the overhead of HTTP headers etc.

It is mentioned here, "What Mats is not": https://github.com/centiservice/mats3#what-mats-is-not