On 02 Apr 2014, at 05:45, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Possibly, although to me this is still exposing the internal of engines to
> users who shouldn't care (or only care if they are specifying an engine type
> that gives them access to these details). Allowing public access to these
> API's worries me in that they are now the API (which goes back to having an
> engine type that exposes these, if that’s desired, and if we are willing to
> accept the consequences of exposing them).
Given all we discussed by now calling it “internal of engines” is not correct
anymore. If for some cases we know that only workers will be calling this API
method and we need to protect the workflow execution from occasional calls from
3rd parties I believe there’s a million ways how to solve this. The simplest
thing that comes to my mind is just passing a generated token to confirm
authority to perform this operation.
>>> Who responds to the timeout though? Isn't that process the watchdog then?
>>> Likely the triggering of a timeout causes something to react (in both
>> The workflow engine IS this watch-dog (and in Mistral, engine is a single
>> manager for all flow executions, in the prototype we call it engine_manager
>> and I hate this name :)) Engine live in process or as a separate process.
>> And it is passive - executed in a thread of a callee. E.g., in process is
>> either called on messaging event handler thread, or by web method thread.
> Right, which in mistral is a web-server right (aka, wherever mistral is
> setup) since the tasks finish by calling a rest-endpoint (or something
> sitting on MQ?)?
Not exactly right. Currently it’s a web server but we’re about to decouple
engine and API server. Most of the work is done. Engine is supposed to listen
to a queue and there may be any number of engines since they are stateless and
hence what’s behind a web server can be scaled as needed. And actually a web
server tier can be scaled easily too (assuming we have a loadbalancer in place).
>> That may be good enough: when DSL is translated to flow, and the task
>> demands repetition with timeout, it's ok to do this trick under the hood
>> when compiling a flow.
> Yup, in a way most languages compilers do all these types of tricks under the
> hood (in much much more complicated manners); as long as we retain 'user
> intention' (aka don't mess how the code executes) we should be able to do any
> tricks we want (in fact most compliers do many many tricks). To me the same
> kind of tricks start to become possible after we get the basics right (can't
> do optimizations, aka -O2, if u don't have basics in the first place).
I’d be careful about this assumption that we can convert DSL to flow, right now
it’s impossible since we need to add more control flow primitives in TaskFlow.
But that’s what Kirill described in the prototype description.
@ Mirantis Inc.
OpenStack-dev mailing list