Comment by babyshake
How does this compare to Inngest? That seems to be the closest comparison AFAIK so I'd be curious to what extent Trigger might be better than Inngest.
How does this compare to Inngest? That seems to be the closest comparison AFAIK so I'd be curious to what extent Trigger might be better than Inngest.
Inngest is very similar to Trigger.dev version 2: it’s an API for queuing and orchestrating workflows. You need to divide your work into steps, where each step needs to have serializable inputs and outputs, and takes less than the timeout of your serverless function (if you're hosted on serverless).
Trigger.dev is a queue and workflow engine but we also run compute. This makes some things possible which aren’t when you only control one side:
1. No timeouts, you can run code for as long as you need. 2. You don’t need to divide your work into steps. If you want you can use multiple tasks. 3. You can install any system packages you need, like ffmpeg, Puppeteer etc. Depending on where you’re deploying this can be a problem with other tools. There are maximum bundle sizes on a lot of platforms which are surprisingly easy to hit. 4. Atomic versioning. Each deploy of your tasks is separate and any runs that have started will continue until finished, locked to that version of the code. This means you don’t need to think about versioning inside your code which can becomes messy and error prone.
One other note is that we’re Apache 2.0.