Hi James There’s an abstract interface to the execution unit in the invoker: Start/Pause/Resume/Stop/Logs. You can select the implementation through a configuration deployment (SPI).
There was some work on using the interface I alluded to for unikernels. I’d imagine the interface it can be adapted for working with a process, microkernel, ... I’m suggesting it’s a drop in replacement but at face value I don’t see that it’s necessary to be too invasive. The openwhisk core is really about starting/pausing/resuming/stopping an execution unit (which happens to be a container today). I think containers are too coarse grained an execution unit for functions and expect technology to change in the future. But when/how long it will take... we’ll see. I’m curious to see how your work unfolds with OpenWhisk and we’re happy to help. -r > On Jul 17, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Farwell, James C <james.c.farw...@intel.com> > wrote: > > Markus Thoemmes found my question on StackOverflow, and suggested I post it > here; > > I am trying to customize OpenWhisk to call a microkernel from the Invoker, > rather than Docker. Is there an effort underway currently to add this > support, or a development guide covering the changes I would need to make? My > current understanding of the code is that this will be a substantial project. > > Is there guidance available on how to move away from the concept of > containers? Or will I be better off treating a microkernel as an abstracted > type of container? > Thanks, > > --James
