Am I the only .NET dev who keeps building workflow engines on top of Hangfire?
The author discusses the challenges faced when building workflow engines on top of Hangfire for .NET applications. They highlight the limitations of using Hangfire for complex workflows, such as handling delays, cancellations, and external events. The article emphasizes the need for a more robust workflow management system that can manage state and resume processes effectively after failures.
- ▪The author has been building .NET apps for seven years and frequently uses Hangfire for background jobs.
- ▪When workflows become complex, the author finds themselves re-implementing missing abstractions on top of Hangfire.
- ▪Key challenges include managing delays, handling external events, and resuming processes after failures.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 3943054) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } Jeison Rojas Posted on May 21 Am I the only .NET dev who keeps building workflow engines on top of Hangfire? #dotnet #csharp #hangfire #architecture I’ve been building .NET apps for about seven years, and I keep running into the same problem. For background jobs, my default answer has usually been Hangfire. And to be clear: I like Hangfire. No shade at all. It is simple, reliable, and boring in the best way.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from DEV.to (Top)
