Sorry Austin, I didn't see your response before I replied. Yes, we're saying the same thing.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:56 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards < austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, jumping in. This makes sense to me – for instance to attach a > logger with some common metadata, e.g trace ID for the request? This is > common in go to add arbitrary items without updating the method signatures, > similar to thread local storage in Java. > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:53 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the clarification Galen. If you call the other Go functions, > > then you could also pass the other values as separate arguments to these > > functions, can't you? > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:31 PM Galen Warren <ga...@cvillewarrens.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The former. > > > > > > I think there's potential for confusion here because we're using the > > > word *function > > > *in a couple of senses. One sense is a *stateful function*; another > sense > > > is a *Go function*. > > > > > > What I'm looking to do is to put values in the Context so that > downstream > > > Go functions that receive the context can access those values. Those > > > downstream Go functions would be called during one invocation of the > > > stateful function. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:48 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Galen, > > > > > > > > Am I understanding it correctly, that you would like to set some > values > > > in > > > > the Context of function A that is then accessible in a downstream > call > > of > > > > function B? Or would you like to set a value that is accessible once > > > > function A is called again (w/ or w/o the same id)? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:59 PM Galen Warren < > ga...@cvillewarrens.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, a potentially simpler way to support this would be to add a > > > > > SetContext method to the statefun.Context interface, and have it > > assign > > > > the > > > > > wrapped context. This would not require changes to the function > spec, > > > or > > > > > anything else, and would be more flexible. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:05 PM Galen Warren < > > ga...@cvillewarrens.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick reply! > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to do is put some things into the context so that > > > > they're > > > > > > available in downstream calls, perhaps in methods with pointer > > > > receivers > > > > > to > > > > > > the function struct (MyFunc) but also perhaps in methods that are > > > > further > > > > > > downstream that don't have access to MyFunc. If I'm understanding > > > > > > correctly, your proposal would work for the former but not the > > > latter. > > > > > > > > > > > > An example would be to put a configured Logger into the context > > via a > > > > > > WithLogger method (logging package - knative.dev/pkg/logging - > > > > > pkg.go.dev > > > > > > <https://pkg.go.dev/knative.dev/pkg/logging#WithLogger>) and > then > > > pull > > > > > it > > > > > > out downstream via FromContext (logging package - > > > > > knative.dev/pkg/logging > > > > > > - pkg.go.dev < > > https://pkg.go.dev/knative.dev/pkg/logging#FromContext > > > > >). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman < > sjwies...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Galen, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No, that is not currently supported, the current idiomatic way > > would > > > > be > > > > > to > > > > > >> pass those values to the struct implementing the Statefun > > interface. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type MyFunc struct { someRuntimeInfo string } func (m *MyFunc) > > > > > Invoke(ctx > > > > > >> statefun.Context, message statefun.Message) error { } func > main() > > { > > > > > >> builder > > > > > >> := statefun.StatefulFunctionsBuilder() > > > > > >> f := MyFunc { someRuntimeInfo: "runtime-provided" } > > builder.WithSpec > > > > > >> (statefun.StatefulFunctionSpec{ FunctionType: > > statefun.TypeNameFrom( > > > > > >> "example/my-func"), Function: f }) > > > > > >> http.Handle("/statefun", builder.AsHandler()) > > > > > >> _ = http.ListenAndServe(":8000", nil) } > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Would this work for you? Or what is the context (pun intended) > you > > > are > > > > > >> looking for? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Seth > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:35 PM Galen Warren < > > > ga...@cvillewarrens.com > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > When stateful functions are invoked, they are passed an > instance > > > of > > > > > >> > statefun.Context, which wraps the context.Context received by > > the > > > > HTTP > > > > > >> > request. Is there any way to customize that context.Context > to, > > > say, > > > > > >> hold > > > > > >> > custom values, using ctx.WithValue()? I don't see a way but I > > > wanted > > > > > to > > > > > >> > ask. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If not, would you be interested in a PR to add this > > > functionality? A > > > > > >> simple > > > > > >> > way might be to add a property to StatefulFunctionSpec, say: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > TransformContext func(ctx context.Context) context.Context > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > ... that, if supplied, would be called to create a customized > > > > context > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > would be used downstream? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thanks. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
