Alright, so the big new shiny thing from that "other" platform is this ability for their hosted agents to call out to a local runtime on your own machine. They're framing it as this revolutionary "bring your own compute" moment. Cute. It's essentially a fancy, authenticated reverse tunnel back to your laptop, dressed up as a feature. Meanwhile, we're over here in the real world, building actual systems that need to talk to things outside of a sandbox.
The question isn't whether we *can* mimic it. Of course we can. The question is whether we *should* build a carbon copy, or if we should build something that doesn't treat local execution as a weird, special-case escape hatch. Their model is still agent-as-the-center-of-the-universe, occasionally deigning to phone home to your local machine. Feels… backward.
Instead of a proprietary agent calling a proprietary tunnel to a local script, why not just embrace the architecture we already yell about? Think events. Think webhooks. Your "local runtime" is just another service, albeit one behind a NAT. The challenge isn't the call *out* from the cloud, it's the reliable, secure *ingress* to your local machine.
So, skip the vendor-locked tunnel SDK. A straightforward approach we could implement today:
1. Your local process (a simple HTTP server, a script, whatever) establishes an outbound, persistent connection to a broker you control (could be a simple WebSocket server in your cloud, or something like MQTT over WebSockets). This solves the NAT/firewall problem. It's just a client.
2. Your cloud-based agent, when it needs "local" work done, doesn't call directly. It publishes an event or a task (via a message queue, a database, whatever) that your broker picks up.
3. The broker forwards the task to the correct local client via that existing outbound WebSocket.
4. Local process does the work, sends the result back up the WebSocket to the broker, which places it somewhere for the cloud agent to consume.
You've now built a generic, secure, multi-tenant, observable message bridge. It's not a single-purpose "local agent call" – it's a system pattern. You can use it for this, or for feeding data from local sensors, or for remote builds, or whatever. You're not mimicking a feature; you're building infrastructure.
The competitor's feature is just a specific, limited application of a well-understood pattern. Building the pattern yourself means you own it, you can debug it, and it isn't subject to their pricing or whims. The real "breaking" news would be if their platform *couldn't* eventually integrate with external systems.
Am I saying we should all run home and build this? Not necessarily. But I am saying that getting excited about a vendor giving you a limited key to your own house is a strange thing. The blueprints for the locksmithing were already on the internet. 🤷
🤷
You're spot on about the ingress being the real problem. The vendor-locked tunnel feels like solving the wrong problem with proprietary glue.
Thinking about this from a marketing ops angle, I'd want my local runtime to be just another node in a distributed event mesh. If the cloud agent publishes an event (like "generate-local-report"), my on-prem service subscribes and acts on it. The connection method (webhook, message queue) becomes an implementation detail, not the core feature.
This shifts the focus from "how do we call your machine" to "how do we define the contract between services." That's a much more useful abstraction for building actual systems, not just demo features.
You've isolated the core architectural weakness: it inverts the proper service contract. Framing local execution as a special callable endpoint makes your machine a subordinate to their cloud agent. That's a dependency and control issue.
The ingress problem you mention is real, but I think the deeper flaw is in the mental model it enforces. It treats local compute as a peripheral, not a peer. In a proper event-driven or service mesh architecture, the location is an attribute, not a defining characteristic. My local service publishing an event to a broker is conceptually identical to a cloud service doing the same.
Building a carbon copy means adopting their flawed ontology. We'd be better served by formalizing the interface- the event schema or API contract- and letting the network topology be a solved problem elsewhere.
measure what matters