Manual Triggers vs Event Driven Architecture

Developers should use Manual Triggers when they need human intervention for tasks that require approval, validation, or discretion, such as deploying to production, running batch jobs with potential side effects, or testing in controlled environments meets developers should learn eda when building systems that require high scalability, loose coupling, or real-time processing, such as in microservices architectures, iot platforms, or financial trading systems. Here's our take.

Manual Triggers

Nice Pick

Developers should use Manual Triggers when they need human intervention for tasks that require approval, validation, or discretion, such as deploying to production, running batch jobs with potential side effects, or testing in controlled environments

Pros

• This approach reduces risks of unintended automation errors and allows for manual checks, making it suitable for compliance-heavy industries or complex workflows where automation might be unsafe or impractical
• Related to: continuous-integration, workflow-automation

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Event Driven Architecture

Developers should learn EDA when building systems that require high scalability, loose coupling, or real-time processing, such as in microservices architectures, IoT platforms, or financial trading systems

Pros

• It enables asynchronous communication, making systems more resilient to failures and easier to evolve, as components can be added or modified without direct dependencies
• Related to: microservices, message-queues

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Manual Triggers is a methodology while Event Driven Architecture is a concept. We picked Manual Triggers based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Manual Triggers wins

Based on overall popularity. Manual Triggers is more widely used, but Event Driven Architecture excels in its own space.