Our great sponsors
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
-
cadence
Cadence is a distributed, scalable, durable, and highly available orchestration engine to execute asynchronous long-running business logic in a scalable and resilient way.
-
-
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
inngest-js
The developer platform for easily building reliable workflows with zero infrastructure for TypeScript & JavaScript
-
toil
A scalable, efficient, cross-platform (Linux/macOS) and easy-to-use workflow engine in pure Python.
-
-
-
-
-
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
Yep, we're backed by YC in the W24 batch - this is evident on our landing page [1].
We're both second time CTOs and we've been on both sides of this, as consumers of and creators of OSS. I was previously a co-founder and CTO of Porter [2], which had an open-core model. There are two risks that most companies think about in the open core model:
1. Big companies using your platform without contributing back in some way or buying a license. I think this is less of a risk, because these organizations are incentivized to buy a support license to help with maintenance, upgrades, and since we sit on a critical path, with uptime.
2. Hyperscalers folding your product in to their offering [3]. This is a bigger risk but is also a bit of a "champagne problem".
Note that smaller companies/individual developers are who we'd like to enable, not crowd out. If people would like to use our cloud offering because it reduces the headache for them, they should do so. If they just want to run our service and manage their own PostgreSQL, they should have the option to do that too.
Based on all of this, here's where we land on things:
1. Everything we've built so far has been 100% MIT licensed. We'd like to keep it that way and make money off of Hatchet Cloud. We'll likely roll out a separate enterprise support agreement for self hosting.
2. Our cloud version isn't going to run a different core engine or API server than our open source version. We'll write interfaces for all plugins to our servers and engines, so even if we have something super specific to how we've chosen to do things on the cloud version, we'll expose the options to write your own plugins on the engine and server.
3. We'd like to make self-hosting as easy to use as our cloud version. We don't want our self-hosted offering to be a second-class citizen.
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
[1] https://hatchet.run
[2] https://github.com/porter-dev/porter
[3] https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws
That's exactly why we built Svix[1]. Building webhooks services, even with amazing tools like FastAPI, Celery and Redis is still a big pain. So we just built a product to solve it.
Hatchet looks cool nonetheless. Queues are a pain for many other use-cases too.
1: https://www.svix.com
How does this compare against Temporal/Cadence/Conductor? Does hatchet also support durable execution?
https://temporal.io/
Yep, we're backed by YC in the W24 batch - this is evident on our landing page [1].
We're both second time CTOs and we've been on both sides of this, as consumers of and creators of OSS. I was previously a co-founder and CTO of Porter [2], which had an open-core model. There are two risks that most companies think about in the open core model:
1. Big companies using your platform without contributing back in some way or buying a license. I think this is less of a risk, because these organizations are incentivized to buy a support license to help with maintenance, upgrades, and since we sit on a critical path, with uptime.
2. Hyperscalers folding your product in to their offering [3]. This is a bigger risk but is also a bit of a "champagne problem".
Note that smaller companies/individual developers are who we'd like to enable, not crowd out. If people would like to use our cloud offering because it reduces the headache for them, they should do so. If they just want to run our service and manage their own PostgreSQL, they should have the option to do that too.
Based on all of this, here's where we land on things:
1. Everything we've built so far has been 100% MIT licensed. We'd like to keep it that way and make money off of Hatchet Cloud. We'll likely roll out a separate enterprise support agreement for self hosting.
2. Our cloud version isn't going to run a different core engine or API server than our open source version. We'll write interfaces for all plugins to our servers and engines, so even if we have something super specific to how we've chosen to do things on the cloud version, we'll expose the options to write your own plugins on the engine and server.
3. We'd like to make self-hosting as easy to use as our cloud version. We don't want our self-hosted offering to be a second-class citizen.
Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
[1] https://hatchet.run
[2] https://github.com/porter-dev/porter
[3] https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws
How does this compare to River Queue (https://riverqueue.com/)? Besides the additional Python and TS client libraries.
You might want to look at https://www.inngest.com for that. Disclaimer: I'm a cofounder. We released event-driven step functions about 20 months ago.
a little late now, but I wonder if https://github.com/DataBiosphere/toil might meet your requirements
Here you go: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75652326/celery-spawn-si...
Plus some adjacent discussion on GitHub: https://github.com/prometheus/client_python/issues/902
Hope that helps!
Have you considered https://github.com/tembo-io/pgmq for the queue bit?