Re: sorry for the github notification flood

Thanks a lot, Rodric, for making the effort! On 18.12.19, 19:23, "Carlos Santana" wrote: Thanks Rodric I got them all this morning :-) Thanks for the holiday cleaning 粒 - Carlos Santana @csantanapr > On Dec 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:

Re: A direction to take in a new component, "the scheduler"

Sven, all, That's a good call-out. In consequence to that: how about we discuss larger changes with a) a test script that simulates the types of load under discussion (and at the same time makes it clear which types of load are ignored for now) and b) a declaration of the KPIs one seeks to

Re: Welcome new Committer Rob Allen

+1!! Congrats, Rob! On 07.01.19, 18:52, "James Thomas" wrote: Awesome news and well deserved! On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:28, Justin Halsall wrote: > Thats great news! Congrats Rob! > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Carlos Santana

Re: Donation of ibm-functions/composer to Apache OpenWhisk

That's awesome, Dave! Thank you and IBM for this contribution. Cheers Michael On 28.09.18, 19:02, "David P Grove" wrote: IBM Research would like to donate the Composer code in ibm-functions/composer to the Apache OpenWhisk incubator project. The code is already open

Re: Asking opinions about "Learning OpenWhisk" a book from O'Reilly I am writing

Hi Michele, Congratulations for getting an O'Reilly contract. That's awesome! Also, this list is totally the right place for this topic (IMO). I have a little comment about the TOC: the way I read it your intended audience are OW users (action developers), not developers of OW itself. Is that

Re: Prototyping for a future architecture

Hi Markus, IMHO what you propose below is a rather severe change in scope of this discussion and effort. Up until so far this was about _evolving_ the OW architecture. We have not explicitly discussed it, but one could assume that it is at least feasible to gradually adopt the new

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

ce containers to take load off existing ones. Precise algorithm to be defined but the primitives should be in place to be able to do that. Does that answer the question? Cheers, Markus Am Mi., 15. Aug. 2018 um 16:18 Uhr schrieb Michael Marth :

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Markus, I agree with your preference of making the state sharded instead of distributed. (not only for the scalability reasons you quote but also for operational concerns). What are your thoughts about losing a shard (planned or crashed) or adding a shard? Michael On 15.08.18, 09:58,

Re: MiniWhisk: what you think?

Michele, Fyi https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-devtools/tree/master/node-local (obviously does not cover your Go use case - but since you asked what else is around...) Cheers Michael On 27.07.18, 00:46, "Michele Sciabarra" wrote: Indeed after thinking about my idea was to

Re: should we enable signed commits on our github repos?

+1 to the hurdle. Even in complicated projects people (like me) like to fix typos in READMEs On 10.07.18, 17:46, "Rob Allen" wrote: Personally, I only sign tags on the OSS projects I lead. If you do it on a per-commit basis, it's yet another hurdle that a contributor has

Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report

Hi, I have a small update on the below. Will add to the original thread. Michael On 06.06.18, 15:24, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > ...We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for >

Re: How to best run non-local tests in ASF (was: Performance tests for OpenWhisk)

A quick update on this: Carlos (and others) has been working on the mechanics of getting distributed tests to run on hardware that is managed by Infra. For this purpose we should have a couple of Infra-managed VMs that are dedicated to OpenWhisk. Bertrand has gotten me in touch with the ASF

[discuss] long running actions

Hi all, taking this discussion from Slack to here: What would be the best way to support long running actions, especially actions for which the duration is unknown when the action is started. An example is e.g. a blackbox container that transcodes a video. The main issue is that OW limits the

Re: AttachmentStore - Handling concurrent attachment updates

Hi Chetan, My2c: making the attachments immutable will yield great benefits as you write below: 1. Proper handling of concurrent updates 2. Simplified caching of attachments as immutable objects can be cached easily On #2: with immutable attachments caching becomes trivial

Re: Upcoming OpenWhisk releases

Hi Carlos, Re the 1.0.0 in "1.0.0-incubating" below: I cannot recall a discussion on the actual version number for the first release (sorry, in case I missed it). I wonder whether we intend to follow SemVer. If yes, then releasing as 1.0 would mean we would not change the external APIs in an

Re: Using bash-based actions

Hi Erez, Fwiw some issues on bash support with more info: https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/2927 https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3138 Michael On 04/03/18 13:00, "Carlos Santana" wrote: Hi Herez Perl and Bash Actions

Re: Using Apache Creadur to audit in the release process

Hi Daisy, Tangential question (sorry): is there a wiki or GH page describing the overall plan for releases? I am especially interested in the Travis part, but would be great to see the full picture. Thanks! Michael On 25/01/18 15:04, "Ying Chun Guo" wrote: Hi,

[jobs] OpenWhisk engineering position at Adobe in San Jose

Hey there, as per the subject: my team at Adobe is looking [1] for a software engineer to work on OpenWhisk (for our I/O Runtime project [2]). Cheers Michael [1] https://adobe.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/external_university/job/San-Jose/Software-Engineer-for-Serverless-Runtime_57259 [2]

Re: Decomposition of OpenWhisk components and repositories

Hi Carlos, Thanks for sharing that! Slide 4 made me wonder on the distinction between “maintained” repos and “experimental” repos. I totally agree that this distinction exists in practice, but I wondered how you got to the list. And I should add: I don’t dispute the repos you put on the

list etiquette: job postings?

Hi, as you might (or not) be aware there is a #jobs channel in the OW Slack. However, that channel only has 35 members which made me wonder how people feel about OpenWhisk job postings on this list? Obviously, the posting would need to be clearly relevant to OpenWhisk and should have a subject

Re: Call for Agenda of this weeks OpenWhisk “Tech. Interchange” meeting

Carlos, Matt, I will not be able to join, but I am very interested in the releases. Would it be possible for you to share the update on list either before or after the call? TIA! Michael On 23/10/17 18:42, "Jeremias Werner" wrote: Hi, This week we will

Re: Propose weekly "Technical Exchange" video meeting for OpenWhisk

Hi Isabel, Happy to share my personal experience. My background (prior to OpenWhisk) is with ASF projects that use only the email list and occasional meetups. Overall, my assessment is that these calls are a welcome addition. I do like them, primarily because it allows to put faces to the names

Re: Signalling production-state of an action

condary OW API Key, but this brakes down for Web Actions as they are public No concrete feedback but worth the discussion, just wanted to give feedback on the convention of using `_` --Carlos Santana On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:42 AM Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com.in

Signalling production-state of an action

Hi, in yesterday’s tech exchange Rodric mentioned that OW does not „know“ if an action is in production or still in development stage. The context of that comment was that we could consider to treat the activation log collection separately (depending on the in-production-state). In our OW

Re: Tech Interchange posted for 2017-08-30

Thanks, Matt! I watched the recording yesterday. At the end there was a question whether these calls are useful. Answer from my POV: they are useful and a welcome addition to email-based discussions. (and I should mention that I was not entirely convinced before the calls started) Would love to

Releases of rOpenWhisk (was: Updating Package and Language versions for a kind)

James, all, “If OpenWhisk did start to produce "releases"" I had it in my backlog to ask this - are we ready to do releases? I think we are, but wondered if something is holding us back that I am not aware of… Michael On 13/07/17 11:02, "James Thomas" wrote: >Good

Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases

ss multiple activations as >threads within a shared process. Can you pls elaborate / provide an >example? > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On 5. Jul 2017, at 16:53, Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com.INVALID> >wrote: >> >> Michael B, >> Re your question:

Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases

gt;I'm struggling to understand how a separate invoker pool helps us avoiding >to implement traditional autoscaling if we process multiple activations as >threads within a shared process. Can you pls elaborate / provide an >example? > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On 5. Jul

Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases

Hi Michael, Totally agree with your statement “value prop of serverless is that folks don't have to care about that" Again, the proposal at hand does not intend to change that at all. On the contrary - in our mind it’s a requirement that the developer should not change or that internals of the

Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases

a “one size fits all” solution here, so I’d >suggest we bite the bullet and engineer for heterogeneity. > >SJF > > >> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> Hi Jeremias, all, >> >> Tyson and Dragos are travellin

Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases

Hi Jeremias, all, Tyson and Dragos are travelling this week, so that I don’t know by when they get to respond. I have worked with them on this topic, so let me jump in and comment until they are able to reply. From my POV having a call like you suggest is a really good idea. Let’s wait for

Re: Adding OpenTracing support

Hi Juca, I was in discussions with Sandeep before he created the PR for Zipkin support, so I can give some background info: As a part of better understanding and improving the performance characteristics of OW we were simply looking for a way to profile the whole system. Zipkin seemed (still

Re: Performance tests for OpenWhisk

@%3Cusers.infra.apache.org%3E On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com<mailto:mma...@adobe.com>> wrote: Dear Infra team, I am enquiring on behalf of the OpenWhisk project (currently in Incubator) [1]. We would like to periodically run performance tests on a distributed

Re: concurrent requests on actions

Hi Tyson, 10x more throughput, i.e. Being able to run OW at 1/10 of the cost - definitely worth looking into :) Like Rodric mentioned before I figured some features might become more complex to implement, like billing, log collection, etc. But given such a huge advancement on throughput that

Re: Performance tests for OpenWhisk

Markus, Does what I describe reflect what you are looking for? If yes, I am happy to ask on infra. Let me know Michael On 26/04/17 07:52, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >Hi Michael, > >On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Michael Marth <mma...@a

Re: Save activations in a new activations DB

Hi Christian, Sorry to chime in late - I was out. Recently, I had also been thinking about splitting more static configure data (like the action) from highly transactional data like the activations. My reason was, however, to have an easier way forward to multi-datacenter deployments.

Re: factoring out "runtimes" into deployment configuration

Hi Rodric, I think that’s great. Only comment (more to Matt than you): If the runtimes are dynamic by deployment (and of course over time) this probably should be reflected in the packaging format spec [1]. (see also previous comment [2]:) - line 252: not sure if the list of runtime names

Re: Passing a context object to actions

l/immutable >parameters. For sequences and parameter scoping see this discussion: >https://github.com/openwhisk/openwhisk/issues/116 > >-r > >> On Jan 17, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Rodric, all, >> >

Re: Passing a context object to actions

cation/protocol). Perhaps you could >review this work and provide feedback? > >Kind regards, >Matt > > > >From: Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com> >To: "dev@openwhisk.apache.org" <dev@openwhisk.apache.org> >Date: 01/11/2017 08:51 AM >Su

Re: Passing a context object to actions

Hi Rodric, Re This has come up before. The reason the signature of actions is dictionary -> dictionary is for action composition. If your signature is (dictionary, dictionary) -> dictionary, you cannot compose actions into a sequence for example. One of the tenants of the underlying programming