> Router is not pulling at queue for "specific actions", just for any action
> that might replace idle containers - right? This is complicated with
> concurrency though since while a container is not idle (paused +
> removable), it may be useable, but only if the action received is the same
> as one existing warm container, and that container has concurrency slots
> available for additional activations. It may be helpful to diagram some of
> this stealing queue flow a bit more, I'm not seeing how it will work out
> other than creating more containers than is absolutely required, which may
> be ok, not sure.
>
Yes, I will diagram things out soonish, I'm a little bit narrow on time
currently.
The idea is that indeed the Router pulls for *specific* actions. This is a
problem when using Kafka, but might be solvable when we don't require
Kafka. I have to test this for feasibility though.
Hmm OK - it's not clear how a router that is empty (not servicing any
activations) becomes a router that is pulling for that specific action, when
other routers pulling for that action are at capacity (so new containers are
needed)
