I really enjoyed this post and love seeing more lightweight approaches! The deep dive on tradeoffs between different durable-execution approaches was great. For me, the most interesting part is that Persistasaurus (cool name btw) use of bytecode generation via ByteBuddy is a clever way to improve DX: it can transparently intercept step functions and capture execution state without requiring explicit API calls.

(Disclosure: I work on DBOS [1]) The author's point about the friction from explicit step wrappers is fair, as we don't use bytecode generation today, but we're actively exploring it to improve DX.

[1]: https://github.com/dbos-inc

▲

kodablah 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> The author's point about the friction from explicit step wrappers is fair, as we don't use bytecode generation today, but we're actively exploring it to improve DX.

There is value in such a wrapper/call at invocation time instead of using the proxy pattern. Specifically, it makes it very clear to both the code author and code reader that this is not a normal method invocation. This is important because it is very common to perform normal method invocations and the caller needs to author code knowing the difference. Java developers, perhaps more than most, likely prefer such invocation explicitness over a JVM agent doing byte code manip.

There is also another reason for preferring a wrapped-like approach - providing options. If you need to provide options (say timeout info) from the call site, it is hard to do if your call is limited to the signature of the implementation and options will have to be provided in a different place.

▲

gunnarmorling 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm still swinging back and forth which approach I ultimately prefer.

As stated in the post, I like how the proxy approach largely avoids any API dependency. I'd also argue that Java developers actually are very familiar with this kind of implicit enrichment of behaviors and execution semantics (e.g. transaction management is weaved into applications that way in Spring or Quarkus applications).

But there's also limits to this in regards to flexibility. For example, if you wanted to delay a method for a dynamically determined period of time, rather than for a fixed time, the annotation-based approach would fall short.

	▲	kodablah 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		At Temporal, for Java we did a hybrid approach of what you have. Specifically, we do the java.lang.reflect.Proxy approach, but the user has to make a call instantiating it from the implementation. This allows users to provide those options at proxy creation time and not require they configure a build step. I can't speak for all JVM people, but I get nervous if I have to use a library that requires an agent or annotation processor. Also, since Temporal activity invocations are (often) remote, many times a user may only have the definition/contract of the "step" (aka activity in Temporal parlance) without a body. Finally, many times users _start_ the "step", not just _execute_ it, which means it needs to return a promise/future/task. Sure this can be wrapped in a suspended virtual thread, but it makes reasoning about things like cancellation harder, and from a client-not-workflow POV, it makes it harder to reattach to an invocation in a type-safe way to, say, wait for the result of something started elsewhere. We did the same proxying approach for TypeScript, but we saw as we got to Python, .NET, and Ruby that being able to _reference_ a "step" while also providing options and having many overloads/approaches of invoking that step has benefits.