sorry, I meant anonymous (not asynchronous)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jeremias Werner <jeremias.wer...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> nice idea. you said, the activations are invoked asynchronous. how does
> throttling work for those?
>
> - jeremias
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Michael M Behrendt <
> michaelbehre...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> > i like that this gives me a stable/predictable route, so that i don't
>> have
>> to keep around a registry of endpoints in my deployment scripts -- as i
>> would if the routes were exposed with a random-ish hash in them.
>>
>> where do you get random-ish hashes today? you mean the api gw integration?
>> If so, I agree that is sub-optimal and should be addressed there as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nick Mitchell <moose...@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
>> Date: 01/13/2017 12:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: Allow actions to be accessible from a web browser
>>
>>
>>
>> i like that this gives me a stable/predictable route, so that i don't have
>> to keep around a registry of endpoints in my deployment scripts -- as i
>> would if the routes were exposed with a random-ish hash in them.
>>
>> and i like the idea of a simple way of supporting client applications that
>> doesn't require an extra step in deployment scripts. i.e. i just tack a
>> `-a
>> export true` on to the create/update steps.
>>
>> i also like the ability to do simple projections, thus avoiding the need
>> for `jq` postprocessing. if i project a field, do i also have to type it,
>> e.g. /field/x/int? or are the mime types only needed when you want to
>> force
>> a non-default interpretation?
>>
>> using mime types to request a particular response header is pretty
>> awesome!
>> though perhaps its use may be somewhat constrained (until we have
>> streaming?) by any payload limitations a whisk installation might have in
>> place.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Markus Thömmes <markusthoem...@me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Haven't looked at the implementation yet but I really dig the idea!
>> >
>> > Are query parameters forwarded to the action as well?
>> >
>> > - mt
>> >
>> > Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>> >
>> > > Am 12.01.2017 um 23:44 schrieb Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > I just opened a pull request to allow actions to be accessible viaa
>> web
>> > > browser. Action invokes this way are anonymous in that the caller is
>> not
>> > > authenticated. The intended action must be named in the path as a
>> fully
>> > > qualified name as in
>> > > /experimental/web/some-namespace/some-package/some-action. The
>> package
>> > is
>> > > optional in that the action may be in the default package. In which
>> case,
>> > > the string "default" must be used.
>> > >
>> > > If the action doesn't exist (or the namespace is not valid) a
>> BadRequest
>> > is
>> > > generated. Optionally, the result form the action may be projected
>> based
>> > on
>> > > a named property. As in
>> > >
>> /experimental/web/some-namespace/some-package/some-action/some-property.
>> > If
>> > > the property
>> > > does not exist in the result then a BadRequest is generated. By
>> > convention,
>> > > the "html" property will attempt to respond with media type
>> "text/html".
>> > >
>> > > Actions may be exposed to this web proxy by adding an annotation
>> > ("export"
>> > > -> true).
>> > > Demo video https://ibm.box.com/s/5c6ignvejihbai3f59uvqcxee9etf0lf.
>> > >
>> > > Feedback solicited and welcomed.
>> > >
>> > > -r
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
