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
t, like billing, log collection, etc. But given such a
>> huge advancement on throughput that would be worth it IMHO.
>> One thing I wonder about, though, is resilience against rogue actions. If
>> an action is blocking (in the Node-sense, not the OW-sense), would that not
>> block
One thing I wonder about, though, is resilience against rogue actions. If
> an action is blocking (in the Node-sense, not the OW-sense), would that not
> block Node’s event loop and thus block other actions in that container? One
> could argue, though, that this rogue action would only block
block other executions of
itself, not affect other actions or customers. WDYT?
Michael
On 01/05/17 17:54, "Tyson Norris"
<tnor...@adobe.com<mailto:tnor...@adobe.com><mailto:tnor...@adobe.com>> wrote:
Hi All -
I created this issue some time ago to discuss concurrent req
ly block other executions
> of itself, not affect other actions or customers. WDYT?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On 01/05/17 17:54, "Tyson Norris"
> <tnor...@adobe.com<mailto:tnor...@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi All -
> I created this issue some time ago
son Norris" <tnor...@adobe.com<mailto:tnor...@adobe.com>>
wrote:
Hi All -
I created this issue some time ago to discuss concurrent requests on actions:
[1] Some people mentioned discussing on the mailing list so I wanted to start
that discussion.
I’ve been doing some testing agai
would only block other executions of
itself, not affect other actions or customers. WDYT?
Michael
On 01/05/17 17:54, "Tyson Norris" <tnor...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi All -
>I created this issue some time ago to discuss concurrent requests on actions:
>[1] Some pe
