Thanks for your feedback.
However I am trying to run the existing nodejs tests using "action loop" and I
see it is mostly compatible.
The "action loop" proxy reports errors at init time in the answer not on the
logs, but I fixed tests for that.
Also the only "real" incompatibility is in the fact that I use typescript
import to include a multi file action, while nodejs uses (at least I think)
some sort of eval. So you do not have to do "export.main = function(args)" but
just "function main(args)". With my runtime you can omit the export only with a
single file action (because I fix the source on the fly and then I compile it
with typescript).
Since the recommended way of doing that in typescript is to use "import" I
would keep this way and skip those tests.
So I am going to submit the typescript runtime as a patch to the nodejs runtime
repo, with name action-typescript-v3.7, and document those (small) difference.
Thoughts?
--
Michele Sciabarra
mich...@sciabarra.com
----- Original message -----
From: Dascalita Dragos <ddrag...@gmail.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Subject: Re: Requesting feedback about the new typescript runtime
Date: Friday, January 10, 2020 3:33 AM
Thanks for the details Rodric.
I’m then +1 for a dedicated repo.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 5:18 PM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It wasn’t done previously because there was no advantage - the go proxy
> lead to performance gains for the python runtime and a few others iirc but
> was the same for node. There was also no support for intra container
> concurrency.
>
> -r
>
> > On Jan 9, 2020, at 8:04 PM, Dascalita Dragos <ddrag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The argument that the way this new runtime is constructed is very
> different
> > from the existing nodejs one, seems a strong one in my opinion to
> consider
> > a dedicated repo.
> >
> > The unclear part to me is whether it would make sense to consider
> applying
> > the “action loop” pattern to the existing NodeJs Runtime. Are there any
> > thoughts on this ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:43 PM Michele Sciabarra <
> mich...@sciabarra.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >> I developed a new openwhisk runtime with native support for typescript
> as
> >> part of my work at Nimbella and I intend to donate this code the Apache
> >> Openwhisk project. The new runtime works for node/javascript as well.
> Since
> >> typescript is compiled, I reused the compilation support from the
> "action
> >> loop" proxy. This runtime is intended as a new action kind, which can
> >> support both node and typescript.
> >> This email is to solicit feedback for the next 48 hrs on the question of
> >> new repo vs reuse the existing repo for node.js. I will decide based on
> >> community feedback and follow up with the next steps.
> >> Features of the new runtime:
> >> - supports precompilation, meaning you use the runtime as a compiler to
> >> "precompile" the sources. Compilation here means translating typescript
> to
> >> javascript, resolve the package.json downloading all the node_modules
> and
> >> producing a zip that includes everything ready to run.
> >> You do this with a command like:
> >>
> >> docker run openwhisk/action-typescript-v3.7 <src.zip >bin.zip
> >>
> >> then you can create the action using bin.zip.
> >> - supports on the fly compilation, so that an action made up of
> typescript
> >> sources will also work.
> >> - supports debugging, but in a different way than adobe/wskdebug. If you
> >> set an environment variable __OW_DEBUG_PORT it will start the runtime
> >> listening on a port for a debugger to attach.
> >>
> >> - an action must always "export" the main function. So in typescript you
> >> need to do: `export function main(args) { .. }' and in javascript
> >> `export.main = function args(...)`. I did manage to make sure a single
> file
> >> with 'function main(args)' works but it does not work when there are
> >> multiple files zipped. I think the current apache openwhisk nodejs
> runtime
> >> uses eval, I use a `require` to import action code.
> >>
> >> Since this is a new language runtime (typescript) and also differs in
> the
> >> node.js support from the existing apache openwhisk nodejs runtime, I am
> >> proposing a new apache repo to host this code. It's possible to include
> the
> >> new sources in the existing node.js runtime repo to avoid adding yet
> >> another repository, but may be confusing since the code base is very
> >> different.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michele Sciabarra
> >> mich...@sciabarra.com
> >>
>
