What does HackerNews think of common-workflow-?

How many workflow management systems do we need? Over 300[1]. If that's not reinventing the wheel.

[1] https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...

Another day, another workflow DSL.

  * looks like yaml
  * has curly braces to look programmery
  * whitespace might be meaningful
  * has pipes like a bash script
https://www.commonwl.org/

https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...

mea culpa: The above was based on a first look at something titled "A DSL for parallel and and scalable computational pipelines"a as opposed to "Java workflow manager with Groovy language scripting." The presented screenshot still looks to me like an unholy union of yaml, js, py and sh. If that sounds groovy to you; have fun.

Q:How many workflow languages/engines does the world need? A: As many as possible: https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...
This is a bit different, but commonwl.org ( https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-... ) has similar aims, at a pipeline / workflow level and used in genomics, astronomy, imaging etc.
This too:

https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...

Also, whenever these conversation of flow-based / piplining tools come up, I always like to point people to Common Workflow Language to remind people that there is an attempt at standardizing workflow descriptions so that they can be used with different packages:

https://www.commonwl.org/

We've been doing this for a while in the genomics space, check out "common workflow language": https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...

Where each container is described by what types of things it takes as inputs and what it outputs -- ie as functions.

In practice we've built hundreds of these and composed them in endless variety for a large range of genomics tasks, processing petabytes of data at Seven Bridges Genomics.

(Minor) co-author on the paper here, just wanted to second your experience in the field.

The big win I've found with Nextflow is that once you've written a workflow, you have a lot of flexibility in the execution environment: Have all the tools already installed on your workstation or large compute instance? Use the local executor to saturate the box with concurrently running jobs. Don't have or want all those tools installed? Use the local executor with Docker images. Have access to a traditional compute cluster (e.g. LSF, SGE, Torque, etc.)? Use the cluster executor with Docker images.

A couple other resources worth checking out:

Toil workflow engine https://github.com/BD2KGenomics/toil

Common Workflow Language (CWL) specification https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...

This is very interesting! I will have look into this more. Two quick comments:

How does this compare to Arvados (http://arvados.org)?

You might be interested in the common workflow language effort which among other goals is developing a multi-vendor standard for wrapping analysis tools using Docker (https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-...)