Re: Prototyping for a future architecture

here and it seems you'll even be more knowledgeable on some of the > things than anybody else, so it'd be awesome to get your experience in > there! > > Cheers, > Markus > > Am Mi., 29. Aug. 2018 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb TzuChiao Yeh < > su3g4284zo...@gmail.com>: > &

Re: Prototyping for a future architecture

Hi, I'm wondering if someone who pay interests aside from core teams (like me) are eligible to join prototyping? I know it will increase the maintenance effort on managing all things being visible: opening and labeling issues, plans, assignees, etc. If yes, from my point of view, a standalone

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

kus Thömmes wrote: > Am So., 19. Aug. 2018 um 18:59 Uhr schrieb TzuChiao Yeh < > su3g4284zo...@gmail.com>: > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:13 PM Markus Thömmes < > markusthoem...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tzu-Chiao, > > > &g

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:13 PM Markus Thömmes wrote: > Hi Tzu-Chiao, > > Am Sa., 18. Aug. 2018 um 06:56 Uhr schrieb TzuChiao Yeh < > su3g4284zo...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi Markus, > > > > Nice thoughts on separating logics in this revision! I'm not sure this

Re: Proposing Lean OpenWhisk

autonomy and lower bandwidth by just allowing OW to run at the edge. > > I agree that considering alternatives to containers when putting > serverless at the edge makes a lot of sense in the long run (or maybe even > medium term) and will be happy to discuss this. > > Cheers. > >

Re: Proposing Lean OpenWhisk

Hi David, Looks cool! Glad to see OpenWhisk step forward to the edge use case. Simple question: have you considered the way that remove out docker containers (break up isolation)? Due to close-source, I'm not sure how aws greengrass did, but seems like there's no docker got installed at all.

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Hi Markus, Yes, I agree that storing activation records should be a separated discussion. Pipe activation records into logging system (elasticsearch, kibana) will be cool! But I think I'm not asking these now though, however, thanks for pointing these out, looks interesting. I think I got some

Re: Proposal on a future architecture of OpenWhisk

Hi Markus, Awesome work! Thanks for doing this. One simple question here: due to directly call actions via http calls, do we still persist activation (i.e. duplicate activations into somewhere storage)? Since we already provide "best-effort" invocation for users, not sure persistence is still

Re: Limit of binary actions

Hi Christian and Carlos, >From my past experiment, there might still exist some hard-coded limitation in action runtime and couchdb https request size. If we allow to fully configure the action size limit. I've tried the similar approach at https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3757

Re: New scheduling algorithm proposal.

would be enough. > If there is a better way to handle this, that would be better. > > Finally, regarding the word, autonomous, I just named it because a > container itself can fetch and handle activation messages without any > intervention of invokers : ) > > Anyway, thank you

Re: New scheduling algorithm proposal.

Hi Dominic, I really like your proposal! Thanks for your awesome presentation and materials, help me a lot. I have some opinions and questions here about the proposal and previous discussions: 1. About kafka utilization: First of all, bypassing invokers is a great idea, though this will lead