4 ms·
If you want to do your workflow in your own procedural code, SWF (and presumably Cadence) are good choices. If you want to use a dependency graph, Airflow is f
by timbray 7y ago
If you want to do your workflow in your own procedural code, SWF (and presumably Cadence) are good choices. If you want to use a dependency graph, Airflow is for you (but I hear operating it is kind of tricky). If you like a state-machine/flowchart kind of approach, AWS Step Functions.
AWS customers these days seem to mostly like Step Functions, although SWF isn't going away, and lots of EC2 instances are running Airflow. Obviously, some people want a managed service and others want OSS that they can control & fine-tune. Nothing wrong with either choice.
Most of the engineering cycles these days are going into Step Functions, keep an eye on that space.
- timbray 7y ago(Oh, should disclose, I helped design & build Step Functions.)
- mfateev 7y agoIf only SWF was extended to run deciders on AWS Lamda. Without this the main advantage of the Step Functions is hosting. I personally would rather see an integrated system where the Step Functions are a natural extension of SWF not a completely separate system. This is the direction the Cadence is going. We are planning to add support for integrating custom DSLs easily, but maintaining the core code based libraries. BTW: If anyone is interested on running the Step Functions DSL on top of Cadence contact the Cadence team. We could work together to get it implemented.
- drewda 7y agoSome people like both managed services _and_ OSS. It's nice to see how, say, GCP offers a managed Airflow service. (Edit: I don't mean this as a negative comment about AWS managed workflow services. Just pointing out some advantages to GCP's approach at present. I'm a happy user of both AWS and GCP services.)