Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
> On Mar 10, 2018, at 3:54 AM, Michele Sciabarrawrote: > > As someone noted, OpenFaas claims to be able to do that. openfaas builds a container per function. -r
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
# the problem of the protocol I am aligned on your view. Indeed what I actually did was to reverse engineering some of the runtimes (most notably) the dockerskeleton to implement the Go based docker skeleton. For efficiency, I had to depart from some of the current practices. As you remarked, the basic problem is while java, python, node can "load code" dynamically and the protocol can be hidden in the proxy, for binaries you cannot. SO I have to mandate a protocol for the binaries. We can hide this protocol in a library but since there are infinite ways of generate a binary (not just go and swift, but also rust, haskell, even C#. And actually executing a binary in practice means also running any interpreted language, so you could support efficiently Ruby or bash or whatever is not already available on the supported programming language. As someone noted, OpenFaas claims to be able to do that. I should investigate better on what OpenFaas does, maybe to copy some ideas :). I know, we should focus on Go but it is not the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is supporting generic executables So what really need to do, is to create AND document a protocol for generic unix executable to be able to interface with OpenWhisk. And the protocol should be simple enough that can be implemented without libraries! # current protocol situation At this stage, we have implicitly a protocol for native actions. Let's call it "OpenWhisk Native Protocol", currently at "version 0.9" This protocol is actually in use at least for swift actions, where I guess there is a significant user base already, and it is somewhat documented in the dockerskeleton. So what we are really discussing here is, in my interpretation: How can we evolve the protocol to make easier the transition for the existing code base? So let's try to put it in a formal way, what we have discussing here. For "OpenWhisk Native Protocol, v0" the current one, we have: actions will receive the input in stdin AND on the command line, will produce as much output as they like in stdin and stderr as long as the last one in stdout is a valid json object. It is no-brainer it is not a very efficient implementation. Also binaries are not required to identify themselves (something that reminds me of HTTP/0.9) and the protocol they speak. --- # the dicussion for protocol v1 For the "OpenWhisk Native Protocol v1", the one I am trying to implement, I am proposing this solution: - the native binary must identify himself (for error detection) with {openwhisk: 1} (with a view to became 2, 3, 4 for the streaming support) - it will loop on stdin, produce output on stdout, one json per line, and log on stderr HOWEVER, as it has been noted, this will create problems with existing Swift binaries. Swift users log with Swift print that produces output on stdout. So I was recommended to use a different channel (channel 3?) and skip the handshake. My concerns are the worse error detection (for the good or the bad, I still think that detecting a misbehaving binary not supporting the protocol at init time is a good thing), and the fact that coding will became a bit awkward for both Go and Swift users. And I believe the handshake should be used anyway. At this stage, my idea is just to add to my go proxy a couple of environment variables, like: OPENWHISK_OUTPUT_CHANNEL=3 OPENWHISK_REQUIRE_HANDSHAKE=no so the proxy can be used with no changes for swift actions, while leaving a natural behaviour for Go actions. A new docker image is required anyway to support. However I think this idea should be discussed. # proposal to document the native protocol However, I am proposing here just create a page, openwhisk-native-protocol.md and discuss the protocol before, and write down this behaviour as the "openwhisk native protocol" v1, and be prepared for more evolutions of the protocol to support streaming and other planned features. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 9:53 PM, Rodric Rabbah wrote: > This is a good discussion - thanks for bringing it to the dev list. > > In essence, native actions push the boundary of how much of the function > abstraction we can maintain. For some of the managed runtimes which include > Node.js, Python and Java, we are able to hide the protocol you allude to in > what we loosely have called the runtime proxy. The proxy is where the > initialization and run protocols are relevant. We deliberately resisted > publishing and documenting the proxy protocol for some time. > > As you observed, the initialization must handshake to the invoker - we do > this today with a generic HTTP response code of 2xx. Anything else is > treated as error. If your current proposal, this is equivalent to > {"openwhisk": 1}. > > The function can only reach the run stage if initialization returns > successfully. This does not however provide any strong guarantee that the > action is well formed or valid. Only that for
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Hi Vadim, your suggestion worked. I was able to simplify the code a bit, but thanks to this I can remove the handshake while detecting immediately crashing executable. Fo the records, here is the code and the test: // startAndCheck func startAndCheck(cmd *exec.Cmd) error { //fmt.Println(cmd.Path) err := cmd.Start() if err != nil { return err } ch := make(chan error) go func() { ch <- cmd.Wait() }() select { case <-ch: return fmt.Errorf("command exited") case <-time.After(100 * time.Millisecond): return nil } } func Example_startAndCheck() { // err cmd := exec.Command("/does/not/exists") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // immediate exit cmd = exec.Command("/bin/true") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // immediate exit with output cmd = exec.Command("/bin/pwd") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // unwanted banner cmd = exec.Command("/usr/bin/bc") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StderrPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // pipe loop cmd = exec.Command("/bin/cat") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StderrPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // Output: // fork/exec /does/not/exists: no such file or directory // command exited // command exited // // } -- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com On Sat, Mar 10, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Vadim Raskin wrote: > >> So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > > Hi Michele, > > what about using cmd.Wait() to check whether the process exited after you > started a go action? It will return a non-nil in case of error, otherwise > blocks forever waiting the process to finish. Waiting for a reasonable > amount of time to make sure that process doesn't exit and close the /init > call afterwards, would it cover the case you mentioned? > > Just to make sure we talk about the same thing: > > errorChan := chan string > > cmd := exec.Command("userBinary") > cmd.Start() > // wait for failure to happen > go func(){ > err := cmd.Wait() > if(err != nil){ > errorChan <- "exited with failure" > } > else { > close(errorChan) > } > }() > // wait at most 10ms for an error to happen > go func(){ > time.Sleep(10 * time.Millisecond) > errorChan <- "happy" > } > runResult <- errorChan > // further processing. > > I haven't tested this code, it also needs to do some clean up of the Wait > go routine, but hopefully the logic is clear. > > regards, > Vadim. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM Michele Sciabarra> wrote: > > > > I would prefer it not be there, but can see the convenience of detecting > > > that an app has immediately crashed. If we can find another way to do > > > that via process inspection, that would be better in my view. > > > > > The problem can be summarised into this code: > > > > // this command exits > > cmd := exec.Command("true") > > out, err := cmd.StdoutPipe() > > > > err = cmd.Start() > > fmt.Println(err) > >// this is nil! no error! > > > > // even worse! attempted to detect > > err = cmd.Process.Signal(syscall.Signal(0)) > > // this is nil too! no error! > > fmt.Println(err) > > > > So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > >
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
At this stage, I think for the "openwhisk protocol 0" (that I am going to write down and document), I plan to just follow your suggestions: - get rid of the handshake - output to channel 3 ALSO for Go (it solves a possibly non deterministic section in the code) For future expansions we can think of the protocol version again, especially for streaming, where the whole initialization and termination is more important (they become long running processes) -- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com On Sun, Mar 11, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Rodric Rabbah wrote: > Continuing on my earlier post about the native function interface, and > following up on the latest changes as suggest by Vadim, i wanted to also > point out that the /init protocol today is synchronous, whereas to do > validation on the binary or to exec a new process, it’s worth > considering an asynchronous handoff. > > So one thought is to augment the protocol to allow /init to initiate the > new binary (load it, exec it) and a /ready to poll which waits for a > response. This bring you closer to the original prototype where you > exec’ed the binary. > > It also makes for a consistent protocol for a native Functions with > their own builtin proxy (go, swift, rust, and also has less copying of > data at runtime), and later can be adapted for a native function like a > bash script which needs a proxy to relay payloads and results. > The /init equivalent for the latter is starting the script, and /ready > is waiting for {openwhisk: 1}. > > -r
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Thanks Vadim for helping out Michele Michele excellent work and thanks for posting the dev list. I agree with Rodric > Functions with their own builtin proxy (go, swift, rust, and also has less copying of data at runtime) For max performance actions would need built in proxies. For Swift I have being looking into kitura and vapor for this. For Java I think we kind already have since it’s single JVM for proxy So any optimization to achieve that fastest init on jvm is welcome and Param is looking into that. Init needs to be fast to the point of noop/async from the openwhisk invoker perspective, then on top is user land on what they want to do on init that is not to be done on every subsequent run. —Carlos On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:02 AM Rodric Rabbahwrote: > Continuing on my earlier post about the native function interface, and > following up on the latest changes as suggest by Vadim, i wanted to also > point out that the /init protocol today is synchronous, whereas to do > validation on the binary or to exec a new process, it’s worth considering > an asynchronous handoff. > > So one thought is to augment the protocol to allow /init to initiate the > new binary (load it, exec it) and a /ready to poll which waits for a > response. This bring you closer to the original prototype where you exec’ed > the binary. > > It also makes for a consistent protocol for a native Functions with their > own builtin proxy (go, swift, rust, and also has less copying of data at > runtime), and later can be adapted for a native function like a bash script > which needs a proxy to relay payloads and results. > The /init equivalent for the latter is starting the script, and /ready is > waiting for {openwhisk: 1}. > > -r
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Continuing on my earlier post about the native function interface, and following up on the latest changes as suggest by Vadim, i wanted to also point out that the /init protocol today is synchronous, whereas to do validation on the binary or to exec a new process, it’s worth considering an asynchronous handoff. So one thought is to augment the protocol to allow /init to initiate the new binary (load it, exec it) and a /ready to poll which waits for a response. This bring you closer to the original prototype where you exec’ed the binary. It also makes for a consistent protocol for a native Functions with their own builtin proxy (go, swift, rust, and also has less copying of data at runtime), and later can be adapted for a native function like a bash script which needs a proxy to relay payloads and results. The /init equivalent for the latter is starting the script, and /ready is waiting for {openwhisk: 1}. -r
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Hi Vadim, your suggestion worked. I was able to simplify the code a bit, but thanks to this I can remove the handshake while detecting immediately crashing executable. Fo the records, here is the code and the test: // startAndCheck func startAndCheck(cmd *exec.Cmd) error { //fmt.Println(cmd.Path) err := cmd.Start() if err != nil { return err } ch := make(chan error) go func() { ch <- cmd.Wait() }() select { case <-ch: return fmt.Errorf("command exited") case <-time.After(100 * time.Millisecond): return nil } } func Example_startAndCheck() { // err cmd := exec.Command("/does/not/exists") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // immediate exit cmd = exec.Command("/bin/true") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // immediate exit with output cmd = exec.Command("/bin/pwd") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StdoutPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // unwanted banner cmd = exec.Command("/usr/bin/bc") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StderrPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // pipe loop cmd = exec.Command("/bin/cat") cmd.StdinPipe() cmd.StderrPipe() fmt.Println(startAndCheck(cmd)) // Output: // fork/exec /does/not/exists: no such file or directory // command exited // command exited // // } -- Michele Sciabarra openwh...@sciabarra.com On Sat, Mar 10, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Vadim Raskin wrote: > >> So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > > Hi Michele, > > what about using cmd.Wait() to check whether the process exited after you > started a go action? It will return a non-nil in case of error, otherwise > blocks forever waiting the process to finish. Waiting for a reasonable > amount of time to make sure that process doesn't exit and close the /init > call afterwards, would it cover the case you mentioned? > > Just to make sure we talk about the same thing: > > errorChan := chan string > > cmd := exec.Command("userBinary") > cmd.Start() > // wait for failure to happen > go func(){ > err := cmd.Wait() > if(err != nil){ > errorChan <- "exited with failure" > } > else { > close(errorChan) > } > }() > // wait at most 10ms for an error to happen > go func(){ > time.Sleep(10 * time.Millisecond) > errorChan <- "happy" > } > runResult <- errorChan > // further processing. > > I haven't tested this code, it also needs to do some clean up of the Wait > go routine, but hopefully the logic is clear. > > regards, > Vadim. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM Michele Sciabarra> wrote: > > > > I would prefer it not be there, but can see the convenience of detecting > > > that an app has immediately crashed. If we can find another way to do > > > that via process inspection, that would be better in my view. > > > > > The problem can be summarised into this code: > > > > // this command exits > > cmd := exec.Command("true") > > out, err := cmd.StdoutPipe() > > > > err = cmd.Start() > > fmt.Println(err) > >// this is nil! no error! > > > > // even worse! attempted to detect > > err = cmd.Process.Signal(syscall.Signal(0)) > > // this is nil too! no error! > > fmt.Println(err) > > > > So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > >
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Wow! A channel and 2 go routines for that checking a process exited. I wrote a similar code except I did not think to using a timeout to always unlock the channel. So yes, that could work thanks. I posted here exactly to get a help like this. Will try. -- Michele Sciabarra openwh...@sciabarra.com On Sat, Mar 10, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Vadim Raskin wrote: > >> So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > > Hi Michele, > > what about using cmd.Wait() to check whether the process exited > after you> started a go action? It will return a non-nil in case of error, > otherwise> blocks forever waiting the process to finish. Waiting for a > reasonable> amount of time to make sure that process doesn't exit and close > the /init> call afterwards, would it cover the case you mentioned? > > Just to make sure we talk about the same thing: > > errorChan := chan string > > cmd := exec.Command("userBinary") > cmd.Start() > // wait for failure to happen > go func(){ > err := cmd.Wait() > if(err != nil){ > errorChan <- "exited with failure" > } > else { > close(errorChan) > } > }() > // wait at most 10ms for an error to happen > go func(){ > time.Sleep(10 * time.Millisecond) > errorChan <- "happy" > } > runResult <- errorChan > // further processing. > > I haven't tested this code, it also needs to do some clean up of > the Wait> go routine, but hopefully the logic is clear. > > regards, > Vadim. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM Michele Sciabarra >> wrote: > > > > I would prefer it not be there, but can see the convenience of > > > detecting> > > that an app has immediately crashed. If we can find > > > another way > > > to do> > > that via process inspection, that would be better in my view. > > > > > The problem can be summarised into this code: > > > > // this command exits > > cmd := exec.Command("true") > > out, err := cmd.StdoutPipe() > > > > err = cmd.Start() > > fmt.Println(err) > >// this is nil! no error! > > > > // even worse! attempted to detect > > err = cmd.Process.Signal(syscall.Signal(0)) > > // this is nil too! no error! > > fmt.Println(err) > > > > So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? > >
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
>> So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? Hi Michele, what about using cmd.Wait() to check whether the process exited after you started a go action? It will return a non-nil in case of error, otherwise blocks forever waiting the process to finish. Waiting for a reasonable amount of time to make sure that process doesn't exit and close the /init call afterwards, would it cover the case you mentioned? Just to make sure we talk about the same thing: errorChan := chan string cmd := exec.Command("userBinary") cmd.Start() // wait for failure to happen go func(){ err := cmd.Wait() if(err != nil){ errorChan <- "exited with failure" } else { close(errorChan) } }() // wait at most 10ms for an error to happen go func(){ time.Sleep(10 * time.Millisecond) errorChan <- "happy" } runResult <- errorChan // further processing. I haven't tested this code, it also needs to do some clean up of the Wait go routine, but hopefully the logic is clear. regards, Vadim. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM Michele Sciabarrawrote: > > I would prefer it not be there, but can see the convenience of detecting > > that an app has immediately crashed. If we can find another way to do > > that via process inspection, that would be better in my view. > > > The problem can be summarised into this code: > > // this command exits > cmd := exec.Command("true") > out, err := cmd.StdoutPipe() > > err = cmd.Start() > fmt.Println(err) >// this is nil! no error! > > // even worse! attempted to detect > err = cmd.Process.Signal(syscall.Signal(0)) > // this is nil too! no error! > fmt.Println(err) > > So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ? >
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
# the problem of the protocol I am aligned on your view. Indeed what I actually did was to reverse engineering some of the runtimes (most notably) the dockerskeleton to implement the Go based docker skeleton. For efficiency, I had to depart from some of the current practices. As you remarked, the basic problem is while java, python, node can "load code" dynamically and the protocol can be hidden in the proxy, for binaries you cannot. SO I have to mandate a protocol for the binaries. We can hide this protocol in a library but since there are infinite ways of generate a binary (not just go and swift, but also rust, haskell, even C#. And actually executing a binary in practice means also running any interpreted language, so you could support efficiently Ruby or bash or whatever is not already available on the supported programming language. As someone noted, OpenFaas claims to be able to do that. I should investigate better on what OpenFaas does, maybe to copy some ideas :). I know, we should focus on Go but it is not the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is supporting generic executables So what really need to do, is to create AND document a protocol for generic unix executable to be able to interface with OpenWhisk. And the protocol should be simple enough that can be implemented without libraries! # current protocol situation At this stage, we have implicitly a protocol for native actions. Let's call it "OpenWhisk Native Protocol", currently at "version 0.9" This protocol is actually in use at least for swift actions, where I guess there is a significant user base already, and it is somewhat documented in the dockerskeleton. So what we are really discussing here is, in my interpretation: How can we evolve the protocol to make easier the transition for the existing code base? So let's try to put it in a formal way, what we have discussing here. For "OpenWhisk Native Protocol, v0" the current one, we have: actions will receive the input in stdin AND on the command line, will produce as much output as they like in stdin and stderr as long as the last one in stdout is a valid json object. It is no-brainer it is not a very efficient implementation. Also binaries are not required to identify themselves (something that reminds me of HTTP/0.9) and the protocol they speak. --- # the dicussion for protocol v1 For the "OpenWhisk Native Protocol v1", the one I am trying to implement, I am proposing this solution: - the native binary must identify himself (for error detection) with {openwhisk: 1} (with a view to became 2, 3, 4 for the streaming support) - it will loop on stdin, produce output on stdout, one json per line, and log on stderr HOWEVER, as it has been noted, this will create problems with existing Swift binaries. Swift users log with Swift print that produces output on stdout. So I was recommended to use a different channel (channel 3?) and skip the handshake. My concerns are the worse error detection (for the good or the bad, I still think that detecting a misbehaving binary not supporting the protocol at init time is a good thing), and the fact that coding will became a bit awkward for both Go and Swift users. And I believe the handshake should be used anyway. At this stage, my idea is just to add to my go proxy a couple of environment variables, like: OPENWHISK_OUTPUT_CHANNEL=3 OPENWHISK_REQUIRE_HANDSHAKE=no so the proxy can be used with no changes for swift actions, while leaving a natural behaviour for Go actions. A new docker image is required anyway to support. However I think this idea should be discussed. # proposal to document the native protocol However, I am proposing here just create a page, openwhisk-native-protocol.md and discuss the protocol before, and write down this behaviour as the "openwhisk native protocol" v1, and be prepared for more evolutions of the protocol to support streaming and other planned features. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 9:53 PM, Rodric Rabbah wrote: > This is a good discussion - thanks for bringing it to the dev list. > > In essence, native actions push the boundary of how much of the function > abstraction we can maintain. For some of the managed runtimes which include > Node.js, Python and Java, we are able to hide the protocol you allude to in > what we loosely have called the runtime proxy. The proxy is where the > initialization and run protocols are relevant. We deliberately resisted > publishing and documenting the proxy protocol for some time. > > As you observed, the initialization must handshake to the invoker - we do > this today with a generic HTTP response code of 2xx. Anything else is > treated as error. If your current proposal, this is equivalent to > {"openwhisk": 1}. > > The function can only reach the run stage if initialization returns > successfully. This does not however provide any strong guarantee that the > action is well formed or valid. Only that for
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
> I would prefer it not be there, but can see the convenience of detecting > that an app has immediately crashed. If we can find another way to do > that via process inspection, that would be better in my view. > The problem can be summarised into this code: // this command exits cmd := exec.Command("true") out, err := cmd.StdoutPipe() err = cmd.Start() fmt.Println(err) // this is nil! no error! // even worse! attempted to detect err = cmd.Process.Signal(syscall.Signal(0)) // this is nil too! no error! fmt.Println(err) So, how can I check the process is actually terminated ?
Re: [LONG] Discussing my implementation of Go actions
Thank you Michele for the contribution. I already provided some initial feedback in the PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-go/pull/1 On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 6:13 AM Michele Sciabarrawrote: > I just did a PR of my version of the Golang action implementation. It > does some "breaking" changes and there is some discussion on the slack > channel. > > So I report the current situation n here, looking for advices and change > recommendations. Since I am a bit confused, if I remember well, one Apache > rule is the mailing list is the ultimate source for the truth... > > It currently works this way (I call it the "pipe-loop" protocol) > > A golang action (or a generic binary) is expected to follow this > "protocol": > > * starts with {"openwhisk": 1} > * reads on line in stardard input, expecting a json ON A SINGLE LINE > * process the line, emits logs in stderr (can be multiple lines) > * outputs a line in stdout in json format ON A SINGLE LINE > * repeat forever > > It is important to note this design is easy to implement and works even > for bash scripts, but it is easy to use also perl, ruby, haskell in an > EFFICIENT way. Indeed this bash script (with jq) is part of my tests: > > --- > #!/bin/bash > echo '{"openwhisk":1}' > while read line > do >name="$(echo $line | jq -r .name)" >logger -s "name=$name" >hello="Hello, $name" >logger -s "sent response" >echo '{"hello":"'$hello'"}' > done > --- > > Things discussed: > > 1) remove the header {"openwhisk":1} > > Actually initially it was not there. But I decided to add this > requirements because the action need to speak a protocol ANYWAY. > > Most important, I explain why I require it starts with "{"openwhisk: 1}". > > The main reason is: I start the child process at init time, and I wanted > to detect when it does not behave properly. > > The simplest problem happens when the action crashes immediately. For > example, a common reason for this problem is uploading a binary using some > dynamic libraries not available in the runtime. For example a swift > action. By defaults it load a lot of different libraries, it crashes > immediately but I cannot detect it until I try to read its stdin. > > I can remove this requirement if someone can show me the go code to check > that cmd.Start("true") or cmd.Start("pwd") exited > > If it is not doable, and I skip the handshake, even if the command > crashed, I will not detect the problem until a /run is executed and the > action times out... > > Carlos say it is fine. It is ok for me but I still think an early problem > detection would be better. Also James recommended me to provide as much as > error detection to the user as early as possible. Kinda of conflicting > directives here... > > Suggestions? > > 2) more checks at init time > > I added some sanity checks. Probably too many. I tried to detect the > error at deployment time, not at invocation time. > > This is different from what currently for example dockerskeleton does. > > If I upload for example something wrong, like a non-zip, a non-elf > executable, my init returns {"error": "description"}, while currently the > dockerskeleton returns always OK. > > Recommendations here? > > 3) output to another channel the result > > Currently I require logs goes to stderr, and stdout is for interacting > with the parent process. > > Rodric suggested to output to a separate channel (channel 3?) and use > stdout and stderr for logs. > > While doable, I need to provision another pipe, and the implementation > should probably do some syscalls to retrieve file descriptor 3. It would > complicate implementation, while currently it is straightforward for any > language that does not have a library available. For swift, even to flush > stdout I needed to write "linux specific" code... I do not dare to think > what I need to do to write in fd3... > > My opinion is that using stdout for I/O and stderr for logs is a better > choice than opening another file descriptor. > > Thoughts here? > > > > > > > > -- > Michele Sciabarra > openwh...@sciabarra.com >