Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Great -- thanks for your help!

PR created: [FLINK-26340][statefun-golang-sdk] Add ability in Golang SDK to
create new statefun.Context from existing one, but with a new underlying
context.Context by galenwarren · Pull Request #303 · apache/flink-statefun
(github.com) 

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:42 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with you Galen, adding a default implementation would not be so
> natural here. We could eventually change this from being an interface to
> just a struct (like http.Request) if there is no use case for custom
> implementations.
>
> Thanks for the nice discussion here + contribution :)
>
> Austin
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:09 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Till.
>>
>>
>>> Is it possible in Go to provide a default implementation for a method?
>>> Maybe that way the introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>>>
>>
>> I can't think of a way to do this that would be seamless to someone who
>> had chosen to create a custom struct implementing statefun.Context. We
>> could create a struct -- say, statefun.ContextDefaultBehavior -- that an
>> implementor could embed in such a custom struct and which would provide an
>> implementation of WithContext, but that embedding would have to be added to
>> the custom struct (i.e. it wouldn't prevent the initial compile-time
>> breakage), and there would be no way to provide an implementation that
>> would work in the general case. I'm not sure that would be any better than
>> just requiring the implementor to add a WithContext method.
>>
>> Austin, please chime in if you have a different idea.
>>
>> I'll proceed for now with the intent of adding the method to
>> statefun.Context. If we decide that a top-level function is a better
>> approach, that would be an easy switch to make.
>>
>> JIRA created: [FLINK-26340] Add ability in Golang SDK to create new
>> statefun.Context from existing one, but with a new underlying
>> context.Context - ASF JIRA (apache.org)
>> 
>>
>> I have the code basically done locally, so, barring objection, I'll add a
>> PR soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 3:41 AM Till Rohrmann 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the discussion Austin and Galen. I think it would be
>>> fine
>>> to break the API at this point in time. Moreover, I don't assume that
>>> many
>>> people have their own statefun.Context implementations. Is it possible in
>>> Go to provide a default implementation for a method? Maybe that way the
>>> introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>>>
>>> Galen, do you want to open a JIRA issue for this proposal?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Till
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM Galen Warren 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yeah, good point. I wasn't considering that someone else might be
>>> > implementing that interface. Practically, I think that's pretty
>>> unlikely,
>>> > but good question.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>>> > austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the
>>> interface
>>> > > is that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete
>>> implementation,
>>> > > we'd have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those
>>> > > interfaces though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren <
>>> ga...@cvillewarrens.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point,
>>> assuming
>>> > >> that the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context
>>> > >> immutable (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO,
>>> > simpler
>>> > >> than an adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
>>> > >> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
>>> > >> ), as opposed to a
>>> > >> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could
>>> > work.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>>> > >> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
>>> > 
>>> >  I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
>>> >  Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value
>>> from
>>> >  statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much
>>> and
>>> > >>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I
>>> > think the
>>> > >>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because
>>> its
>>> > >>> functionality is 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

I agree with you Galen, adding a default implementation would not be so
natural here. We could eventually change this from being an interface to
just a struct (like http.Request) if there is no use case for custom
implementations.

Thanks for the nice discussion here + contribution :)

Austin


On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:09 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Thanks, Till.
>
>
>> Is it possible in Go to provide a default implementation for a method?
>> Maybe that way the introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>>
>
> I can't think of a way to do this that would be seamless to someone who
> had chosen to create a custom struct implementing statefun.Context. We
> could create a struct -- say, statefun.ContextDefaultBehavior -- that an
> implementor could embed in such a custom struct and which would provide an
> implementation of WithContext, but that embedding would have to be added to
> the custom struct (i.e. it wouldn't prevent the initial compile-time
> breakage), and there would be no way to provide an implementation that
> would work in the general case. I'm not sure that would be any better than
> just requiring the implementor to add a WithContext method.
>
> Austin, please chime in if you have a different idea.
>
> I'll proceed for now with the intent of adding the method to
> statefun.Context. If we decide that a top-level function is a better
> approach, that would be an easy switch to make.
>
> JIRA created: [FLINK-26340] Add ability in Golang SDK to create new
> statefun.Context from existing one, but with a new underlying
> context.Context - ASF JIRA (apache.org)
> 
>
> I have the code basically done locally, so, barring objection, I'll add a
> PR soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 3:41 AM Till Rohrmann 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for the discussion Austin and Galen. I think it would be fine
>> to break the API at this point in time. Moreover, I don't assume that many
>> people have their own statefun.Context implementations. Is it possible in
>> Go to provide a default implementation for a method? Maybe that way the
>> introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>>
>> Galen, do you want to open a JIRA issue for this proposal?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Till
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM Galen Warren 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, good point. I wasn't considering that someone else might be
>> > implementing that interface. Practically, I think that's pretty
>> unlikely,
>> > but good question.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> > austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the
>> interface
>> > > is that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete
>> implementation,
>> > > we'd have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those
>> > > interfaces though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming
>> > >> that the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context
>> > >> immutable (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO,
>> > simpler
>> > >> than an adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
>> > >>
>> > >> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
>> > >> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
>> > >> ), as opposed to a
>> > >> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could
>> > work.
>> > >>
>> > >> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> > >> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
>> > 
>> >  I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
>> >  Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
>> >  statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much
>> and
>> > >>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I
>> > think the
>> > >>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because
>> its
>> > >>> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines,
>> cancellation,
>> > >>> values – that's it).
>> > >>> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I
>> > >>> bring it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the
>> > statefun
>> > >>> Context interface and go with a simpler solution (either the
>> > `WithContext`
>> > >>> method or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible
>> > uses.
>> > >>> WDYT?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Austin
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren <
>> ga...@cvillewarrens.com>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Thanks, Till.


> Is it possible in Go to provide a default implementation for a method?
> Maybe that way the introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>

I can't think of a way to do this that would be seamless to someone who had
chosen to create a custom struct implementing statefun.Context. We could
create a struct -- say, statefun.ContextDefaultBehavior -- that an
implementor could embed in such a custom struct and which would provide an
implementation of WithContext, but that embedding would have to be added to
the custom struct (i.e. it wouldn't prevent the initial compile-time
breakage), and there would be no way to provide an implementation that
would work in the general case. I'm not sure that would be any better than
just requiring the implementor to add a WithContext method.

Austin, please chime in if you have a different idea.

I'll proceed for now with the intent of adding the method to
statefun.Context. If we decide that a top-level function is a better
approach, that would be an easy switch to make.

JIRA created: [FLINK-26340] Add ability in Golang SDK to create new
statefun.Context from existing one, but with a new underlying
context.Context - ASF JIRA (apache.org)


I have the code basically done locally, so, barring objection, I'll add a
PR soon.






On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 3:41 AM Till Rohrmann  wrote:

> Thanks a lot for the discussion Austin and Galen. I think it would be fine
> to break the API at this point in time. Moreover, I don't assume that many
> people have their own statefun.Context implementations. Is it possible in
> Go to provide a default implementation for a method? Maybe that way the
> introduction of the new method would not be breaking.
>
> Galen, do you want to open a JIRA issue for this proposal?
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, good point. I wasn't considering that someone else might be
> > implementing that interface. Practically, I think that's pretty unlikely,
> > but good question.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> > austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the
> interface
> > > is that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete implementation,
> > > we'd have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those
> > > interfaces though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming
> > >> that the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context
> > >> immutable (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO,
> > simpler
> > >> than an adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
> > >>
> > >> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
> > >> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
> > >> ), as opposed to a
> > >> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could
> > work.
> > >>
> > >> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> > >> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
> > 
> >  I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
> >  Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
> >  statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much
> and
> > >>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I
> > think the
> > >>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because
> its
> > >>> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
> > >>> values – that's it).
> > >>> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I
> > >>> bring it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the
> > statefun
> > >>> Context interface and go with a simpler solution (either the
> > `WithContext`
> > >>> method or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible
> > uses.
> > >>> WDYT?
> > >>>
> > >>> Austin
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren <
> ga...@cvillewarrens.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >   One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> > > `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're
> > looking
> > > for.
> > >
> > 
> >  I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
> >  dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an
> > implementation that
> >  simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing
> > statefun.Context
> >  would violate the assumption that contexts a

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Till Rohrmann]

Thanks a lot for the discussion Austin and Galen. I think it would be fine
to break the API at this point in time. Moreover, I don't assume that many
people have their own statefun.Context implementations. Is it possible in
Go to provide a default implementation for a method? Maybe that way the
introduction of the new method would not be breaking.

Galen, do you want to open a JIRA issue for this proposal?

Cheers,
Till

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Yeah, good point. I wasn't considering that someone else might be
> implementing that interface. Practically, I think that's pretty unlikely,
> but good question.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the interface
> > is that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete implementation,
> > we'd have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those
> > interfaces though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming
> >> that the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context
> >> immutable (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO,
> simpler
> >> than an adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
> >>
> >> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
> >> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
> >> ), as opposed to a
> >> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could
> work.
> >>
> >> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> >> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
> 
>  I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
>  Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
>  statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much and
> >>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I
> think the
> >>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because its
> >>> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
> >>> values – that's it).
> >>> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I
> >>> bring it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the
> statefun
> >>> Context interface and go with a simpler solution (either the
> `WithContext`
> >>> method or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible
> uses.
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Austin
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>   One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> > `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're
> looking
> > for.
> >
> 
>  I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
>  dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an
> implementation that
>  simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing
> statefun.Context
>  would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if
> the
>  implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
>  context structure and associated them with the passed-in
> context.Context,
>  that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun
> context
>  structure that we'd have to be careful about.
> 
> 
> > What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?
> >
> 
>  I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
>  Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
>  statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
> 
>   The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave
> > quite well, no?
> >
> 
>  Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
>  solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
>  context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two
> contexts
>  around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one
> for
>  any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.
> 
>  On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>  austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hey,
> >
> > Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.
> >
> > I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context.
> > One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> > `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're
> looking
> > for. That could be added to th

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Yeah, good point. I wasn't considering that someone else might be
implementing that interface. Practically, I think that's pretty unlikely,
but good question.



On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the interface
> is that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete implementation,
> we'd have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those
> interfaces though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming
>> that the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context
>> immutable (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO, simpler
>> than an adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
>> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
>> ), as opposed to a
>> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could work.
>>
>> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context

 I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
 Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
 statefun Storage, write one back, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much and
>>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I think the
>>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because its
>>> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
>>> values – that's it).
>>> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I
>>> bring it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the statefun
>>> Context interface and go with a simpler solution (either the `WithContext`
>>> method or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible uses.
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Austin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
> for.
>

 I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
 dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an implementation that
 simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing statefun.Context
 would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if the
 implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
 context structure and associated them with the passed-in context.Context,
 that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun context
 structure that we'd have to be careful about.


> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?
>

 I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense.
 Depending on what is being done, it might need to read a value from
 statefun Storage, write one back, etc.

  The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave
> quite well, no?
>

 Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
 solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
 context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two contexts
 around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one for
 any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.

 On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
 austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.
>
> I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context.
> One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
> for. That could be added to the statefun context package as a standalone
> method (e.g. statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but
> would only work for the private implementation. I think the statefun
> Context type being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and
> restricts us a bit here.
>
> I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to
> be used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit
> the example you gave quite well, no?
>
> func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message
> statefun.Message) error {
>logger := NewLogger()
>downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

I think the only complication with adding `WithContext` to the interface is
that it makes it breaking :/ If it were the concrete implementation, we'd
have more flexibility. I'm not sure what guarantees are on those interfaces
though – @sjwies...@gmail.com, wdyt?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming that
> the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context immutable
> (which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO, simpler than an
> adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
> statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
> ), as opposed to a
> top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could work.
>
> Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
>>>
>>> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
>>> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
>>> write one back, etc.
>>
>>
>> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much and
>> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I think the
>> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because its
>> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
>> values – that's it).
>> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I
>> bring it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the statefun
>> Context interface and go with a simpler solution (either the `WithContext`
>> method or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible uses.
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Austin
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
 `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
 for.

>>>
>>> I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
>>> dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an implementation that
>>> simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing statefun.Context
>>> would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if the
>>> implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
>>> context structure and associated them with the passed-in context.Context,
>>> that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun context
>>> structure that we'd have to be careful about.
>>>
>>>
 What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?

>>>
>>> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
>>> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
>>> write one back, etc.
>>>
>>>  The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave quite
 well, no?

>>>
>>> Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
>>> solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
>>> context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two contexts
>>> around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one for
>>> any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hey,

 Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.

 I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context. One
 place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a `WithContext`
 method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking for. That could
 be added to the statefun context package as a standalone method (e.g.
 statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but would only
 work for the private implementation. I think the statefun Context type
 being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and restricts us
 a bit here.

 I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to
 be used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit
 the example you gave quite well, no?

 func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
 error {
logger := NewLogger()
downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger)
return SomeOtherFunc(downCtx)
 }

 func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
logger := ctx.Value("logger")
return nil
 }

 What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context? I think that
 would help me, at least, understand the role of the statefun context.

  I'm curious what you woul

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

I think I would choose the WithContext method at this point, assuming that
the implementation keeps any instance of the stateful context immutable
(which should be doable). It's the simplest option IMO, simpler than an
adapter approach. Thanks for the suggestion.

My slight preference would be to add 'WithContext' as a method to
statefun.Context (similar to your Request.WithContext example
), as opposed to a
top-level function, i.e. statefun.WithContext, but either one could work.

Would that work for you? What do the rest of you think?



On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:52 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
>>
>> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
>> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
>> write one back, etc.
>
>
> To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much and
> cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I think the
> `context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because its
> functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
> values – that's it).
> This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I bring
> it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the statefun Context
> interface and go with a simpler solution (either the `WithContext` method
> or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible uses. WDYT?
>
> Austin
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>>  One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
>>> `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
>>> for.
>>>
>>
>> I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
>> dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an implementation that
>> simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing statefun.Context
>> would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if the
>> implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
>> context structure and associated them with the passed-in context.Context,
>> that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun context
>> structure that we'd have to be careful about.
>>
>>
>>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?
>>>
>>
>> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
>> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
>> write one back, etc.
>>
>>  The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave quite
>>> well, no?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
>> solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
>> context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two contexts
>> around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one for
>> any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.
>>>
>>> I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context. One
>>> place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a `WithContext`
>>> method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking for. That could
>>> be added to the statefun context package as a standalone method (e.g.
>>> statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but would only
>>> work for the private implementation. I think the statefun Context type
>>> being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and restricts us
>>> a bit here.
>>>
>>> I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to
>>> be used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit
>>> the example you gave quite well, no?
>>>
>>> func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
>>> error {
>>>logger := NewLogger()
>>>downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger)
>>>return SomeOtherFunc(downCtx)
>>> }
>>>
>>> func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
>>>logger := ctx.Value("logger")
>>>return nil
>>> }
>>>
>>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context? I think that
>>> would help me, at least, understand the role of the statefun context.
>>>
>>>  I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
 as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
 Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?

>>>
>>> I am not involved in statefun really, but IMO that seems like quite a
>>> lot of overhead to just pass values via the context. Perhaps we should
>>> consider decomposing the statefun context itself so pieces of functionality
>>> can be passed a

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

>
> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context
>
> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
> write one back, etc.


To me, this indicates that the context is responsible for too much and
cannot properly be passed to functions with a distinct purpose. I think the
`context.Context` shares this design but gets away with it because its
functionality is so constrained and generic (deadlines, cancellation,
values – that's it).
This is getting away from the original question of the thread, but I bring
it up to suggest that we take a more holistic look at the statefun Context
interface and go with a simpler solution (either the `WithContext` method
or Till's suggestion) to avoid further muddying the possible uses. WDYT?

Austin

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 1:14 PM Galen Warren 
wrote:

>  One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
>> `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
>> for.
>>
>
> I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
> dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an implementation that
> simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing statefun.Context
> would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if the
> implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
> context structure and associated them with the passed-in context.Context,
> that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun context
> structure that we'd have to be careful about.
>
>
>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?
>>
>
> I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending
> on what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
> write one back, etc.
>
>  The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave quite
>> well, no?
>>
>
> Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
> solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
> context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two contexts
> around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one for
> any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.
>>
>> I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context. One
>> place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a `WithContext`
>> method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking for. That could
>> be added to the statefun context package as a standalone method (e.g.
>> statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but would only
>> work for the private implementation. I think the statefun Context type
>> being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and restricts us
>> a bit here.
>>
>> I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to be
>> used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the
>> example you gave quite well, no?
>>
>> func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
>> error {
>>logger := NewLogger()
>>downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger)
>>return SomeOtherFunc(downCtx)
>> }
>>
>> func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
>>logger := ctx.Value("logger")
>>return nil
>> }
>>
>> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context? I think that
>> would help me, at least, understand the role of the statefun context.
>>
>>  I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
>>> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
>>> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>>>
>>
>> I am not involved in statefun really, but IMO that seems like quite a lot
>> of overhead to just pass values via the context. Perhaps we should consider
>> decomposing the statefun context itself so pieces of functionality can be
>> passed around more easily?
>>
>> Best,
>> Austin
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Request.WithContext
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:51 AM Galen Warren 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Seth.
>>>
>>> I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
>>> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
>>> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Seth Wiesman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 I believe the discussion revolved around:

 1. fewer parameters
 2. better aligned with other language sdks
 3. we found precedent in other libraries (apologies this was long enough
 ago I cannot remember which ones, I'm looking through old discussions
 now)

 I 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

>
>  One place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a
> `WithContext` method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking
> for.
>

I considered something similar, too, and upon another look, maybe I
dismissed it too quickly. The concern I had was that an implementation that
simply updated the internal context.Context of an existing statefun.Context
would violate the assumption that contexts are immutable. However, if the
implementation copied all the statefun.Context parts to a new stateful
context structure and associated them with the passed-in context.Context,
that seems like it could work. There's a sync.Mutex in the statefun context
structure that we'd have to be careful about.


> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context?
>

I think it's hard to answer this question, in a general sense. Depending on
what is being done, it might need to read a value from statefun Storage,
write one back, etc.

 The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the example you gave quite
> well, no?
>

Yes, this would work, but I agree with Till that this is not a perfect
solution. In the event that downstream code needs to access both the
context.Context and the statefun.Context, one would be passing two contexts
around, but it would be important not to use the statefun.Context one for
any context values. That's workable, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.
>
> I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context. One
> place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a `WithContext`
> method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking for. That could
> be added to the statefun context package as a standalone method (e.g.
> statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but would only
> work for the private implementation. I think the statefun Context type
> being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and restricts us
> a bit here.
>
> I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to be
> used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the
> example you gave quite well, no?
>
> func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
> error {
>logger := NewLogger()
>downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger)
>return SomeOtherFunc(downCtx)
> }
>
> func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
>logger := ctx.Value("logger")
>return nil
> }
>
> What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context? I think that
> would help me, at least, understand the role of the statefun context.
>
>  I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
>> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
>> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>>
>
> I am not involved in statefun really, but IMO that seems like quite a lot
> of overhead to just pass values via the context. Perhaps we should consider
> decomposing the statefun context itself so pieces of functionality can be
> passed around more easily?
>
> Best,
> Austin
>
>
> [1]: https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Request.WithContext
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:51 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Seth.
>>
>> I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
>> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
>> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Seth Wiesman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I believe the discussion revolved around:
>>>
>>> 1. fewer parameters
>>> 2. better aligned with other language sdks
>>> 3. we found precedent in other libraries (apologies this was long enough
>>> ago I cannot remember which ones, I'm looking through old discussions
>>> now)
>>>
>>> I would in general champion a solution that keeps the SDKs looking
>>> similar
>>> across languages. A big part of statefun's positioning in the market is
>>> the
>>> polyglot nature and making the transition between languages as seamless
>>> as
>>> possible is very important.
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:33 AM Till Rohrmann 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Galen,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for explaining the problems with the current design. I think
>>> I've
>>> > already learned quite a bit wrt Go thanks to you :-)
>>> >
>>> > From what you describe it seems indeed a bit restrictive to let the
>>> > statefun.Context contain the context.Context w/o giving access to it.
>>> Maybe @Seth
>>> > Wiesman  can elaborate a bit more on the design
>>> > decisions to make sure that we have the full picture.
>>> >
>>> > As a cheap workaround you could create a context.Context object by
>>> calling
>>> > https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
>>> on
>>> > the statefun.Context and then pass this

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

Hey,

Sorry for the late response – been off the ML for a few days.

I am not too familiar with other Go libs that use a custom context. One
place we could look is the `net/http` Request, which has a `WithContext`
method[1] that seems to expose the behavior we're looking for. That could
be added to the statefun context package as a standalone method (e.g.
statefun.WithContext(sCtx Context, ctx context.Context)), but would only
work for the private implementation. I think the statefun Context type
being an interface instead of a concrete type complicates and restricts us
a bit here.

I guess I am not fully understanding why the statefun Context needs to be
used so far down the line. The solution that Till proposed seems to fit the
example you gave quite well, no?

func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
error {
   logger := NewLogger()
   downCtx := context.WithValue(ctx, "logger", logger)
   return SomeOtherFunc(downCtx)
}

func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
   logger := ctx.Value("logger")
   return nil
}

What does "SomeOtherFunc" need with the statefun context? I think that
would help me, at least, understand the role of the statefun context.

 I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>

I am not involved in statefun really, but IMO that seems like quite a lot
of overhead to just pass values via the context. Perhaps we should consider
decomposing the statefun context itself so pieces of functionality can be
passed around more easily?

Best,
Austin


[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Request.WithContext


On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:51 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Thanks, Seth.
>
> I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
> as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
> Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Seth Wiesman  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I believe the discussion revolved around:
>>
>> 1. fewer parameters
>> 2. better aligned with other language sdks
>> 3. we found precedent in other libraries (apologies this was long enough
>> ago I cannot remember which ones, I'm looking through old discussions now)
>>
>> I would in general champion a solution that keeps the SDKs looking similar
>> across languages. A big part of statefun's positioning in the market is
>> the
>> polyglot nature and making the transition between languages as seamless as
>> possible is very important.
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:33 AM Till Rohrmann 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Galen,
>> >
>> > Thanks for explaining the problems with the current design. I think I've
>> > already learned quite a bit wrt Go thanks to you :-)
>> >
>> > From what you describe it seems indeed a bit restrictive to let the
>> > statefun.Context contain the context.Context w/o giving access to it.
>> Maybe @Seth
>> > Wiesman  can elaborate a bit more on the design
>> > decisions to make sure that we have the full picture.
>> >
>> > As a cheap workaround you could create a context.Context object by
>> calling
>> > https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
>> on
>> > the statefun.Context and then pass this Context instance to the
>> downstream
>> > function. But I agree that this is not the perfect solution.
>> >
>> > How do other libraries handle this situation if they offer a custom
>> > Context type? Maybe @Austin Cawley-Edwards 
>> you
>> > have an opinion on the matter.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Till
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:42 PM Galen Warren 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, upon further fiddling, I think it would be possible to keep full
>> >> backward compatibility and add the option for someone to use an Invoke
>> >> method with a separate context.Context and statefun.Runtime, via an
>> >> adapter, if direct manipulation of the context.Context is needed. So,
>> >> basically, the idea would be to let the user choose the form of the
>> Invoke
>> >> method, with the default behavior remaining the same as now.
>> >>
>> >> This would require:
>> >>
>> >>- Recreating the Runtime interface (all methods currently defined on
>> >>Context except not embedding context.Context) and embedding it in
>> the
>> >>statefun.Context interface, so that statefun.Context remains
>> >> effectively
>> >>unchanged
>> >>- Add StatefulFunctionV2 and StatefunFunctionV2Pointer to support
>> the
>> >>new signature with separate context and runtime
>> >>- Add StatefulFunctionV2Adapter to wrap a StatefulFunctionV2 and
>> expose
>> >>it as a StatefulFunction. The statefun.Context would get split into
>> a
>> >>context.Context and a statefun.Runtime here in order to call the new
>> >>signature.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Thanks, Seth.

I'm curious what you would think about an approach that kept everything
as-is, by default, but allowed for a separated context and runtime in the
Invoke method, on an opt-in basis, via an adapter?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Seth Wiesman  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I believe the discussion revolved around:
>
> 1. fewer parameters
> 2. better aligned with other language sdks
> 3. we found precedent in other libraries (apologies this was long enough
> ago I cannot remember which ones, I'm looking through old discussions now)
>
> I would in general champion a solution that keeps the SDKs looking similar
> across languages. A big part of statefun's positioning in the market is the
> polyglot nature and making the transition between languages as seamless as
> possible is very important.
>
> Seth
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:33 AM Till Rohrmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Galen,
> >
> > Thanks for explaining the problems with the current design. I think I've
> > already learned quite a bit wrt Go thanks to you :-)
> >
> > From what you describe it seems indeed a bit restrictive to let the
> > statefun.Context contain the context.Context w/o giving access to it.
> Maybe @Seth
> > Wiesman  can elaborate a bit more on the design
> > decisions to make sure that we have the full picture.
> >
> > As a cheap workaround you could create a context.Context object by
> calling
> > https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
> on
> > the statefun.Context and then pass this Context instance to the
> downstream
> > function. But I agree that this is not the perfect solution.
> >
> > How do other libraries handle this situation if they offer a custom
> > Context type? Maybe @Austin Cawley-Edwards  you
> > have an opinion on the matter.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:42 PM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So, upon further fiddling, I think it would be possible to keep full
> >> backward compatibility and add the option for someone to use an Invoke
> >> method with a separate context.Context and statefun.Runtime, via an
> >> adapter, if direct manipulation of the context.Context is needed. So,
> >> basically, the idea would be to let the user choose the form of the
> Invoke
> >> method, with the default behavior remaining the same as now.
> >>
> >> This would require:
> >>
> >>- Recreating the Runtime interface (all methods currently defined on
> >>Context except not embedding context.Context) and embedding it in the
> >>statefun.Context interface, so that statefun.Context remains
> >> effectively
> >>unchanged
> >>- Add StatefulFunctionV2 and StatefunFunctionV2Pointer to support the
> >>new signature with separate context and runtime
> >>- Add StatefulFunctionV2Adapter to wrap a StatefulFunctionV2 and
> expose
> >>it as a StatefulFunction. The statefun.Context would get split into a
> >>context.Context and a statefun.Runtime here in order to call the new
> >>signature.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06 PM Galen Warren 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Was the reason to combine them the desire to have two parameters vs.
> >> > three, or was there another motivation?
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Seth Wiesman 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to
> couple
> >> the
> >> >> statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type
> >> went
> >> >> away).
> >> >>
> >> >> Seth
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren <
> ga...@cvillewarrens.com
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Thanks for looking into this!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
> >> >> > libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an
> example
> >> >> > <
> >> https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
> >> >> >;
> >> >> > in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key,
> inside
> >> >> the
> >> >> > exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be
> supplied
> >> to
> >> >> the
> >> >> > proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in
> >> this
> >> >> > case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it
> very
> >> >> well
> >> >> > might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context
> and
> >> >> the
> >> >> > statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
> >> >> > StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
> >> >> > operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version
> of
> >> >> the
> >> >> > Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
> >> >> > context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun
> >> >> "runtime".
> >> >> > So maybe something like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > type StatefulFunction interface {
> >> >> > >

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Seth Wiesman]

Hi all,

I believe the discussion revolved around:

1. fewer parameters
2. better aligned with other language sdks
3. we found precedent in other libraries (apologies this was long enough
ago I cannot remember which ones, I'm looking through old discussions now)

I would in general champion a solution that keeps the SDKs looking similar
across languages. A big part of statefun's positioning in the market is the
polyglot nature and making the transition between languages as seamless as
possible is very important.

Seth


On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:33 AM Till Rohrmann  wrote:

> Hi Galen,
>
> Thanks for explaining the problems with the current design. I think I've
> already learned quite a bit wrt Go thanks to you :-)
>
> From what you describe it seems indeed a bit restrictive to let the
> statefun.Context contain the context.Context w/o giving access to it. Maybe 
> @Seth
> Wiesman  can elaborate a bit more on the design
> decisions to make sure that we have the full picture.
>
> As a cheap workaround you could create a context.Context object by calling
> https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45 on
> the statefun.Context and then pass this Context instance to the downstream
> function. But I agree that this is not the perfect solution.
>
> How do other libraries handle this situation if they offer a custom
> Context type? Maybe @Austin Cawley-Edwards  you
> have an opinion on the matter.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:42 PM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> So, upon further fiddling, I think it would be possible to keep full
>> backward compatibility and add the option for someone to use an Invoke
>> method with a separate context.Context and statefun.Runtime, via an
>> adapter, if direct manipulation of the context.Context is needed. So,
>> basically, the idea would be to let the user choose the form of the Invoke
>> method, with the default behavior remaining the same as now.
>>
>> This would require:
>>
>>- Recreating the Runtime interface (all methods currently defined on
>>Context except not embedding context.Context) and embedding it in the
>>statefun.Context interface, so that statefun.Context remains
>> effectively
>>unchanged
>>- Add StatefulFunctionV2 and StatefunFunctionV2Pointer to support the
>>new signature with separate context and runtime
>>- Add StatefulFunctionV2Adapter to wrap a StatefulFunctionV2 and expose
>>it as a StatefulFunction. The statefun.Context would get split into a
>>context.Context and a statefun.Runtime here in order to call the new
>>signature.
>>
>> Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06 PM Galen Warren 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Was the reason to combine them the desire to have two parameters vs.
>> > three, or was there another motivation?
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Seth Wiesman 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to couple
>> the
>> >> statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type
>> went
>> >> away).
>> >>
>> >> Seth
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks for looking into this!
>> >> >
>> >> > The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
>> >> > libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
>> >> > <
>> https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
>> >> >;
>> >> > in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside
>> >> the
>> >> > exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> > proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in
>> this
>> >> > case.
>> >> >
>> >> > Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very
>> >> well
>> >> > might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and
>> >> the
>> >> > statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
>> >> > StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
>> >> > operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of
>> >> the
>> >> > Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
>> >> > context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun
>> >> "runtime".
>> >> > So maybe something like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > type StatefulFunction interface {
>> >> > > Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
>> >> > > }
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ... instead of the current:
>> >> >
>> >> > type StatefulFunction interface {
>> >> > > Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
>> >> > > }
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context,
>> >> except
>> >> > the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
>> >> > manipulated and passed around normally.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible wa

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Till Rohrmann]

Hi Galen,

Thanks for explaining the problems with the current design. I think I've
already learned quite a bit wrt Go thanks to you :-)

>From what you describe it seems indeed a bit restrictive to let the
statefun.Context contain the context.Context w/o giving access to it.
Maybe @Seth
Wiesman  can elaborate a bit more on the design
decisions to make sure that we have the full picture.

As a cheap workaround you could create a context.Context object by calling
https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45 on
the statefun.Context and then pass this Context instance to the downstream
function. But I agree that this is not the perfect solution.

How do other libraries handle this situation if they offer a custom Context
type? Maybe @Austin Cawley-Edwards  you have an
opinion on the matter.

Cheers,
Till

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 7:42 PM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> So, upon further fiddling, I think it would be possible to keep full
> backward compatibility and add the option for someone to use an Invoke
> method with a separate context.Context and statefun.Runtime, via an
> adapter, if direct manipulation of the context.Context is needed. So,
> basically, the idea would be to let the user choose the form of the Invoke
> method, with the default behavior remaining the same as now.
>
> This would require:
>
>- Recreating the Runtime interface (all methods currently defined on
>Context except not embedding context.Context) and embedding it in the
>statefun.Context interface, so that statefun.Context remains effectively
>unchanged
>- Add StatefulFunctionV2 and StatefunFunctionV2Pointer to support the
>new signature with separate context and runtime
>- Add StatefulFunctionV2Adapter to wrap a StatefulFunctionV2 and expose
>it as a StatefulFunction. The statefun.Context would get split into a
>context.Context and a statefun.Runtime here in order to call the new
>signature.
>
> Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06 PM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > Was the reason to combine them the desire to have two parameters vs.
> > three, or was there another motivation?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Seth Wiesman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to couple
> the
> >> statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type went
> >> away).
> >>
> >> Seth
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for looking into this!
> >> >
> >> > The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
> >> > libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
> >> > <
> https://github.com/knative/pkg/blob/d48172451966/logging/logger.go#L45
> >> >;
> >> > in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside
> >> the
> >> > exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied
> to
> >> the
> >> > proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in this
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very
> >> well
> >> > might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and
> >> the
> >> > statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
> >> > StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
> >> > operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of
> >> the
> >> > Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
> >> > context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun
> >> "runtime".
> >> > So maybe something like this:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > type StatefulFunction interface {
> >> > > Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
> >> > > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ... instead of the current:
> >> >
> >> > type StatefulFunction interface {
> >> > > Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
> >> > > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context,
> >> except
> >> > the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
> >> > manipulated and passed around normally.
> >> >
> >> > I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible way,
> >> with a
> >> > new set of types and methods, e.g. StatefulFunctionV2,
> >> > StatefufFunctionSpecV2, StatefulFunctions.WithSpecV2, etc. Or it could
> >> be
> >> > done in an almost backward-compatible way, by changing the existing
> >> > StatefulFunction, StatefulFunctionSpec, StatefulFunctions.WithSpec and
> >> > providing an adapter for people who want to continue to use the
> >> > two-parameter version of Invoke.
> >> >
> >> > If those kinds of changes are a non-starter, then IMO the next best
> >> option
> >> > would be adding something like:
> >> >
> >> > PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ... to StatefulFunctionSpec to allow a one-time customization of the
> >> 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

So, upon further fiddling, I think it would be possible to keep full
backward compatibility and add the option for someone to use an Invoke
method with a separate context.Context and statefun.Runtime, via an
adapter, if direct manipulation of the context.Context is needed. So,
basically, the idea would be to let the user choose the form of the Invoke
method, with the default behavior remaining the same as now.

This would require:

   - Recreating the Runtime interface (all methods currently defined on
   Context except not embedding context.Context) and embedding it in the
   statefun.Context interface, so that statefun.Context remains effectively
   unchanged
   - Add StatefulFunctionV2 and StatefunFunctionV2Pointer to support the
   new signature with separate context and runtime
   - Add StatefulFunctionV2Adapter to wrap a StatefulFunctionV2 and expose
   it as a StatefulFunction. The statefun.Context would get split into a
   context.Context and a statefun.Runtime here in order to call the new
   signature.

Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a crack at it.


On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:06 PM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Was the reason to combine them the desire to have two parameters vs.
> three, or was there another motivation?
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Seth Wiesman  wrote:
>
>> FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to couple the
>> statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type went
>> away).
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for looking into this!
>> >
>> > The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
>> > libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
>> > > >;
>> > in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside
>> the
>> > exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied to
>> the
>> > proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in this
>> > case.
>> >
>> > Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very
>> well
>> > might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and
>> the
>> > statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
>> > StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
>> > operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of
>> the
>> > Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
>> > context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun
>> "runtime".
>> > So maybe something like this:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > type StatefulFunction interface {
>> > > Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
>> > > }
>> >
>> >
>> > ... instead of the current:
>> >
>> > type StatefulFunction interface {
>> > > Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
>> > > }
>> >
>> >
>> > ... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context,
>> except
>> > the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
>> > manipulated and passed around normally.
>> >
>> > I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible way,
>> with a
>> > new set of types and methods, e.g. StatefulFunctionV2,
>> > StatefufFunctionSpecV2, StatefulFunctions.WithSpecV2, etc. Or it could
>> be
>> > done in an almost backward-compatible way, by changing the existing
>> > StatefulFunction, StatefulFunctionSpec, StatefulFunctions.WithSpec and
>> > providing an adapter for people who want to continue to use the
>> > two-parameter version of Invoke.
>> >
>> > If those kinds of changes are a non-starter, then IMO the next best
>> option
>> > would be adding something like:
>> >
>> > PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
>> >
>> >
>> > ... to StatefulFunctionSpec to allow a one-time customization of the
>> > underlying context at the beginning of a stateful function invocation.
>> That
>> > would cover a lot of use cases.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:06 AM Till Rohrmann 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks a lot for clarifying the problem. I think I now understand the
>> > > problem. As you've probably figured out, I have no clue about Go and
>> > > its usage of the Context type.
>> > >
>> > > After looking into it a bit I was wondering whether we can't follow a
>> > > similar route as it is done for the Context type. By adding something
>> > like
>> > >
>> > > type valueCtx struct {
>> > > Context
>> > > key, val interface{}
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > func (c *valueCtx) Value(key interface{}) interface{} {
>> > > if c.key == key {
>> > > return c.val
>> > > }
>> > > return c.Context.Value(key)
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > func WithValue(parent Context, key, val interface{}) Context {
>> > > if parent == nil {
>> > > panic("cannot create context from nil parent")
>> > > }
>> > > if key == nil {
>> > > panic("nil key")
>> > > }
>> > > return &valueCtx{parent, key, val}
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Was the reason to combine them the desire to have two parameters vs. three,
or was there another motivation?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:02 PM Seth Wiesman  wrote:

> FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to couple the
> statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type went
> away).
>
> Seth
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for looking into this!
> >
> > The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
> > libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
> >  >;
> > in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside the
> > exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied to
> the
> > proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in this
> > case.
> >
> > Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very
> well
> > might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and the
> > statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
> > StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
> > operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of the
> > Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
> > context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun "runtime".
> > So maybe something like this:
> >
> > >
> > > type StatefulFunction interface {
> > > Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
> > > }
> >
> >
> > ... instead of the current:
> >
> > type StatefulFunction interface {
> > > Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
> > > }
> >
> >
> > ... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context,
> except
> > the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
> > manipulated and passed around normally.
> >
> > I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible way,
> with a
> > new set of types and methods, e.g. StatefulFunctionV2,
> > StatefufFunctionSpecV2, StatefulFunctions.WithSpecV2, etc. Or it could be
> > done in an almost backward-compatible way, by changing the existing
> > StatefulFunction, StatefulFunctionSpec, StatefulFunctions.WithSpec and
> > providing an adapter for people who want to continue to use the
> > two-parameter version of Invoke.
> >
> > If those kinds of changes are a non-starter, then IMO the next best
> option
> > would be adding something like:
> >
> > PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
> >
> >
> > ... to StatefulFunctionSpec to allow a one-time customization of the
> > underlying context at the beginning of a stateful function invocation.
> That
> > would cover a lot of use cases.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:06 AM Till Rohrmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks a lot for clarifying the problem. I think I now understand the
> > > problem. As you've probably figured out, I have no clue about Go and
> > > its usage of the Context type.
> > >
> > > After looking into it a bit I was wondering whether we can't follow a
> > > similar route as it is done for the Context type. By adding something
> > like
> > >
> > > type valueCtx struct {
> > > Context
> > > key, val interface{}
> > > }
> > >
> > > func (c *valueCtx) Value(key interface{}) interface{} {
> > > if c.key == key {
> > > return c.val
> > > }
> > > return c.Context.Value(key)
> > > }
> > >
> > > func WithValue(parent Context, key, val interface{}) Context {
> > > if parent == nil {
> > > panic("cannot create context from nil parent")
> > > }
> > > if key == nil {
> > > panic("nil key")
> > > }
> > > return &valueCtx{parent, key, val}
> > > }
> > >
> > > to the statefun/context.go we would allow to extend a Statefun context
> > with
> > > values w/o changing the underlying instance. If statefun.Context is not
> > > needed, then there is already the option to unwrap the context.Context
> > and
> > > to extend it with values and then pass on this instance. But maybe this
> > is
> > > no idiomatic Go. Let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:01 PM Galen Warren 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm ... a downside to my proposal is that Go contexts are supposed to
> > be
> > > > immutable, i.e. when adding a custom value to a context, a new
> context
> > is
> > > > created with the new value and the old context isn't changed.
> Changing
> > > the
> > > > context.Context associated with the statefun.Context sort of goes
> > against
> > > > the spirit of that, i.e. a consumer of statefun.Context could see
> > custom
> > > > values change unexpectedly if another consumer of the same
> > > statefun.Context
> > > > modified the underlying context.Context.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid that, I think we'd be back to having some mechanism to
> > customize
> > > > the underlying context.Context once, when the statefun.Context is
> > created
> > > > at the begi

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Seth Wiesman]

FWIW I received a lot of early feedback explicitly asking me to couple the
statefun specific operations with the Context (why the runtime type went
away).

Seth

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Thanks for looking into this!
>
> The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
> libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
> ;
> in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside the
> exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied to the
> proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in this
> case.
>
> Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very well
> might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and the
> statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
> StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
> operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of the
> Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
> context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun "runtime".
> So maybe something like this:
>
> >
> > type StatefulFunction interface {
> > Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
> > }
>
>
> ... instead of the current:
>
> type StatefulFunction interface {
> > Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
> > }
>
>
> ... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context, except
> the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
> manipulated and passed around normally.
>
> I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible way, with a
> new set of types and methods, e.g. StatefulFunctionV2,
> StatefufFunctionSpecV2, StatefulFunctions.WithSpecV2, etc. Or it could be
> done in an almost backward-compatible way, by changing the existing
> StatefulFunction, StatefulFunctionSpec, StatefulFunctions.WithSpec and
> providing an adapter for people who want to continue to use the
> two-parameter version of Invoke.
>
> If those kinds of changes are a non-starter, then IMO the next best option
> would be adding something like:
>
> PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
>
>
> ... to StatefulFunctionSpec to allow a one-time customization of the
> underlying context at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. That
> would cover a lot of use cases.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:06 AM Till Rohrmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for clarifying the problem. I think I now understand the
> > problem. As you've probably figured out, I have no clue about Go and
> > its usage of the Context type.
> >
> > After looking into it a bit I was wondering whether we can't follow a
> > similar route as it is done for the Context type. By adding something
> like
> >
> > type valueCtx struct {
> > Context
> > key, val interface{}
> > }
> >
> > func (c *valueCtx) Value(key interface{}) interface{} {
> > if c.key == key {
> > return c.val
> > }
> > return c.Context.Value(key)
> > }
> >
> > func WithValue(parent Context, key, val interface{}) Context {
> > if parent == nil {
> > panic("cannot create context from nil parent")
> > }
> > if key == nil {
> > panic("nil key")
> > }
> > return &valueCtx{parent, key, val}
> > }
> >
> > to the statefun/context.go we would allow to extend a Statefun context
> with
> > values w/o changing the underlying instance. If statefun.Context is not
> > needed, then there is already the option to unwrap the context.Context
> and
> > to extend it with values and then pass on this instance. But maybe this
> is
> > no idiomatic Go. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:01 PM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm ... a downside to my proposal is that Go contexts are supposed to
> be
> > > immutable, i.e. when adding a custom value to a context, a new context
> is
> > > created with the new value and the old context isn't changed. Changing
> > the
> > > context.Context associated with the statefun.Context sort of goes
> against
> > > the spirit of that, i.e. a consumer of statefun.Context could see
> custom
> > > values change unexpectedly if another consumer of the same
> > statefun.Context
> > > modified the underlying context.Context.
> > >
> > > To avoid that, I think we'd be back to having some mechanism to
> customize
> > > the underlying context.Context once, when the statefun.Context is
> created
> > > at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. Adding a field
> like:
> > >
> > > PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
> > >
> > > ... to the StatefulFunctionSpec struct could accomplish that, i.e. if
> > > PrepareContext were supplied, the context could be customized once at
> the
> > > start of a function invocation and then left immutable after that
> point.
> > >
> > > (Using statefun.Context as the input is deliberate h

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Thanks for looking into this!

The issue I think we'd run into with your proposal is that, often,
libraries use non-exported types for context keys. Here is an example
;
in this case, the non-exported loggerKey{} is used as the key, inside the
exported WithLogger function. The key that would have to be supplied to the
proposed Value and WithValue functions would not be accessible in this case.

Honestly, if *everything *were on the table -- and understand it very well
might not be -- I'd suggest decoupling the Golang context.Context and the
statefun Context, i.e. have two separate parameters to
StatefulFunction.Invoke representing Golang context and statefun
operations. This is actually how things were in an earlier version of the
Golang SDK; the first parameter to Invoke was the plain-vanilla
context.Context and a separate parameter provided the statefun "runtime".
So maybe something like this:

>
> type StatefulFunction interface {
> Invoke(ctx context.Context, runtime Runtime, message Message) error
> }


... instead of the current:

type StatefulFunction interface {
> Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error
> }


... where Runtime would be everything currently in statefun.Context, except
the context.Context part. This would allow context.Context to be
manipulated and passed around normally.

I think this could potentially be done in a backward-compatible way, with a
new set of types and methods, e.g. StatefulFunctionV2,
StatefufFunctionSpecV2, StatefulFunctions.WithSpecV2, etc. Or it could be
done in an almost backward-compatible way, by changing the existing
StatefulFunction, StatefulFunctionSpec, StatefulFunctions.WithSpec and
providing an adapter for people who want to continue to use the
two-parameter version of Invoke.

If those kinds of changes are a non-starter, then IMO the next best option
would be adding something like:

PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context


... to StatefulFunctionSpec to allow a one-time customization of the
underlying context at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. That
would cover a lot of use cases.


On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:06 AM Till Rohrmann  wrote:

> Thanks a lot for clarifying the problem. I think I now understand the
> problem. As you've probably figured out, I have no clue about Go and
> its usage of the Context type.
>
> After looking into it a bit I was wondering whether we can't follow a
> similar route as it is done for the Context type. By adding something like
>
> type valueCtx struct {
> Context
> key, val interface{}
> }
>
> func (c *valueCtx) Value(key interface{}) interface{} {
> if c.key == key {
> return c.val
> }
> return c.Context.Value(key)
> }
>
> func WithValue(parent Context, key, val interface{}) Context {
> if parent == nil {
> panic("cannot create context from nil parent")
> }
> if key == nil {
> panic("nil key")
> }
> return &valueCtx{parent, key, val}
> }
>
> to the statefun/context.go we would allow to extend a Statefun context with
> values w/o changing the underlying instance. If statefun.Context is not
> needed, then there is already the option to unwrap the context.Context and
> to extend it with values and then pass on this instance. But maybe this is
> no idiomatic Go. Let me know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:01 PM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > Hmm ... a downside to my proposal is that Go contexts are supposed to be
> > immutable, i.e. when adding a custom value to a context, a new context is
> > created with the new value and the old context isn't changed. Changing
> the
> > context.Context associated with the statefun.Context sort of goes against
> > the spirit of that, i.e. a consumer of statefun.Context could see custom
> > values change unexpectedly if another consumer of the same
> statefun.Context
> > modified the underlying context.Context.
> >
> > To avoid that, I think we'd be back to having some mechanism to customize
> > the underlying context.Context once, when the statefun.Context is created
> > at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. Adding a field like:
> >
> > PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
> >
> > ... to the StatefulFunctionSpec struct could accomplish that, i.e. if
> > PrepareContext were supplied, the context could be customized once at the
> > start of a function invocation and then left immutable after that point.
> >
> > (Using statefun.Context as the input is deliberate here, in order to
> allow
> > the context.Context to be populated using values from the
> statefun.Context,
> > for example the function id).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:34 AM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > An example of passing it around would be:
> > >
> > > func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
> > > error {
> > >
> > > logger := NewLogger()
> > > ctx.SetContext(ctxzap.ToContext(ctx, logge

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Till Rohrmann]

Thanks a lot for clarifying the problem. I think I now understand the
problem. As you've probably figured out, I have no clue about Go and
its usage of the Context type.

After looking into it a bit I was wondering whether we can't follow a
similar route as it is done for the Context type. By adding something like

type valueCtx struct {
Context
key, val interface{}
}

func (c *valueCtx) Value(key interface{}) interface{} {
if c.key == key {
return c.val
}
return c.Context.Value(key)
}

func WithValue(parent Context, key, val interface{}) Context {
if parent == nil {
panic("cannot create context from nil parent")
}
if key == nil {
panic("nil key")
}
return &valueCtx{parent, key, val}
}

to the statefun/context.go we would allow to extend a Statefun context with
values w/o changing the underlying instance. If statefun.Context is not
needed, then there is already the option to unwrap the context.Context and
to extend it with values and then pass on this instance. But maybe this is
no idiomatic Go. Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Till

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:01 PM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Hmm ... a downside to my proposal is that Go contexts are supposed to be
> immutable, i.e. when adding a custom value to a context, a new context is
> created with the new value and the old context isn't changed. Changing the
> context.Context associated with the statefun.Context sort of goes against
> the spirit of that, i.e. a consumer of statefun.Context could see custom
> values change unexpectedly if another consumer of the same statefun.Context
> modified the underlying context.Context.
>
> To avoid that, I think we'd be back to having some mechanism to customize
> the underlying context.Context once, when the statefun.Context is created
> at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. Adding a field like:
>
> PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context
>
> ... to the StatefulFunctionSpec struct could accomplish that, i.e. if
> PrepareContext were supplied, the context could be customized once at the
> start of a function invocation and then left immutable after that point.
>
> (Using statefun.Context as the input is deliberate here, in order to allow
> the context.Context to be populated using values from the statefun.Context,
> for example the function id).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:34 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > An example of passing it around would be:
> >
> > func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
> > error {
> >
> > logger := NewLogger()
> > ctx.SetContext(ctxzap.ToContext(ctx, logger))
> >
> > return SomeOtherFunc(ctx)
> > }
> >
> > func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
> >
> > logger := ctxzap.Extract(ctx)
> > logger.Info(...)
> >
> > return nil
> > }
> >
> > This would also work with further nested calls, so long as the context is
> > passed to them.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ha, our emails keep passing.
> >>
> >> I've been playing around with options locally, and the SetContext option
> >> seems to be the most flexible (and non-breaking), imo.
> >>
> >> The implementation would be trivial, just add:
> >>
> >> SetContext(ctx context.Context)
> >>
> >> ... to the statefun.Context interface, which is implemented as:
> >>
> >> func (s *statefunContext) SetContext(ctx context.Context) {
> >> s.Context = ctx
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:18 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> >> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would be helpful to have a small example though, if you have on
> Galen,
> >>> to see how you're passing it around.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> >>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't
> give
> >>> > access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation
> is
> >>> > package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
> >>> > statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but
> if
> >>> we
> >>> > were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap
> >>> solution.
> >>> > e.g.,
> >>> >
> >>> > ```
> >>> > type StatefunContext struct {
> >>> > // expose embedded context
> >>> > context.Context
> >>> >
> >>> > // make the mutext private
> >>> > mu sync.Mutex
> >>> >
> >>> > // keep internals private
> >>> > self Address
> >>> > caller   *Address
> >>> > storage  *storage
> >>> > response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
> >>> > }
> >>> > ```
> >>> >
> >>> > You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
> >>> > context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit
> >>> ugly, but
> >>> > may work.
> >>> >
> >>> > ```
> >>> > func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
> >>> >   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
> >>> > sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.C

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Hmm ... a downside to my proposal is that Go contexts are supposed to be
immutable, i.e. when adding a custom value to a context, a new context is
created with the new value and the old context isn't changed. Changing the
context.Context associated with the statefun.Context sort of goes against
the spirit of that, i.e. a consumer of statefun.Context could see custom
values change unexpectedly if another consumer of the same statefun.Context
modified the underlying context.Context.

To avoid that, I think we'd be back to having some mechanism to customize
the underlying context.Context once, when the statefun.Context is created
at the beginning of a stateful function invocation. Adding a field like:

PrepareContext func(ctx statefun.Context) context.Context

... to the StatefulFunctionSpec struct could accomplish that, i.e. if
PrepareContext were supplied, the context could be customized once at the
start of a function invocation and then left immutable after that point.

(Using statefun.Context as the input is deliberate here, in order to allow
the context.Context to be populated using values from the statefun.Context,
for example the function id).






On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:34 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> An example of passing it around would be:
>
> func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
> error {
>
> logger := NewLogger()
> ctx.SetContext(ctxzap.ToContext(ctx, logger))
>
> return SomeOtherFunc(ctx)
> }
>
> func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {
>
> logger := ctxzap.Extract(ctx)
> logger.Info(...)
>
> return nil
> }
>
> This would also work with further nested calls, so long as the context is
> passed to them.
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> Ha, our emails keep passing.
>>
>> I've been playing around with options locally, and the SetContext option
>> seems to be the most flexible (and non-breaking), imo.
>>
>> The implementation would be trivial, just add:
>>
>> SetContext(ctx context.Context)
>>
>> ... to the statefun.Context interface, which is implemented as:
>>
>> func (s *statefunContext) SetContext(ctx context.Context) {
>> s.Context = ctx
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:18 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be helpful to have a small example though, if you have on Galen,
>>> to see how you're passing it around.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
>>> > access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
>>> > package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
>>> > statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if
>>> we
>>> > were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap
>>> solution.
>>> > e.g.,
>>> >
>>> > ```
>>> > type StatefunContext struct {
>>> > // expose embedded context
>>> > context.Context
>>> >
>>> > // make the mutext private
>>> > mu sync.Mutex
>>> >
>>> > // keep internals private
>>> > self Address
>>> > caller   *Address
>>> > storage  *storage
>>> > response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
>>> > }
>>> > ```
>>> >
>>> > You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
>>> > context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit
>>> ugly, but
>>> > may work.
>>> >
>>> > ```
>>> > func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
>>> >   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
>>> > sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
>>> >   }
>>> >   // ...
>>> > }
>>> > ```
>>> >
>>> > Let me know what you all think,
>>> > Austin
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [1]:
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren >> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 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, 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

An example of passing it around would be:

func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
error {

logger := NewLogger()
ctx.SetContext(ctxzap.ToContext(ctx, logger))

return SomeOtherFunc(ctx)
}

func SomeOtherFunc(ctx context.Context) error {

logger := ctxzap.Extract(ctx)
logger.Info(...)

return nil
}

This would also work with further nested calls, so long as the context is
passed to them.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> Ha, our emails keep passing.
>
> I've been playing around with options locally, and the SetContext option
> seems to be the most flexible (and non-breaking), imo.
>
> The implementation would be trivial, just add:
>
> SetContext(ctx context.Context)
>
> ... to the statefun.Context interface, which is implemented as:
>
> func (s *statefunContext) SetContext(ctx context.Context) {
> s.Context = ctx
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:18 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be helpful to have a small example though, if you have on Galen,
>> to see how you're passing it around.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
>> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
>> > access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
>> > package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
>> > statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if
>> we
>> > were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap
>> solution.
>> > e.g.,
>> >
>> > ```
>> > type StatefunContext struct {
>> > // expose embedded context
>> > context.Context
>> >
>> > // make the mutext private
>> > mu sync.Mutex
>> >
>> > // keep internals private
>> > self Address
>> > caller   *Address
>> > storage  *storage
>> > response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
>> > }
>> > ```
>> >
>> > You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
>> > context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit ugly,
>> but
>> > may work.
>> >
>> > ```
>> > func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
>> >   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
>> > sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
>> >   }
>> >   // ...
>> > }
>> > ```
>> >
>> > Let me know what you all think,
>> > Austin
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]:
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 > >
>> >> > 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
>> >> > > >
>> >

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Ha, our emails keep passing.

I've been playing around with options locally, and the SetContext option
seems to be the most flexible (and non-breaking), imo.

The implementation would be trivial, just add:

SetContext(ctx context.Context)

... to the statefun.Context interface, which is implemented as:

func (s *statefunContext) SetContext(ctx context.Context) {
s.Context = ctx
}




On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:18 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It would be helpful to have a small example though, if you have on Galen,
> to see how you're passing it around.
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
> austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
> > access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
> > package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
> > statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if we
> > were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap
> solution.
> > e.g.,
> >
> > ```
> > type StatefunContext struct {
> > // expose embedded context
> > context.Context
> >
> > // make the mutext private
> > mu sync.Mutex
> >
> > // keep internals private
> > self Address
> > caller   *Address
> > storage  *storage
> > response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
> > context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit ugly,
> but
> > may work.
> >
> > ```
> > func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
> >   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
> > sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
> >   }
> >   // ...
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > Let me know what you all think,
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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 
> >> > 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 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Austin -- what would you think about an option to add SetContext(ctx
context.Context) as a method to the statefun.Context interface? Then one
could do something like this:

func (f *MyFunc) Invoke(ctx statefun.Context, message statefun.Message)
error {

logger := NewLogger()
ctx.SetContext(ctxzap.ToContext(ctx, logger))

}

... at any point that the context.Context internal to statefun.Context
needed to be updated? I think this would work with pretty much anything out
there that adds values to context.Context.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:12 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
> access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
> package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
> statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if we
> were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap solution.
> e.g.,
>
> ```
> type StatefunContext struct {
> // expose embedded context
> context.Context
>
> // make the mutext private
> mu sync.Mutex
>
> // keep internals private
> self Address
> caller   *Address
> storage  *storage
> response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
> }
> ```
>
> You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
> context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit ugly, but
> may work.
>
> ```
> func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
>   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
> sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
>   }
>   // ...
> }
> ```
>
> Let me know what you all think,
> Austin
>
>
> [1]:
>
> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> > > 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
> > > > > > >

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

It would be helpful to have a small example though, if you have on Galen,
to see how you're passing it around.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM Austin Cawley-Edwards <
austin.caw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
> access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
> package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
> statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if we
> were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap solution.
> e.g.,
>
> ```
> type StatefunContext struct {
> // expose embedded context
> context.Context
>
> // make the mutext private
> mu sync.Mutex
>
> // keep internals private
> self Address
> caller   *Address
> storage  *storage
> response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
> }
> ```
>
> You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
> context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit ugly, but
> may work.
>
> ```
> func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
>   if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
> sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
>   }
>   // ...
> }
> ```
>
> Let me know what you all think,
> Austin
>
>
> [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 
>> > 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 > >
>> > > 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 > >
>> > > > 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
>> > > > > > > ) and
>> > then
>> > > > pull
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > out downstream via FromContext (logging packa

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

Looking through the statefun Context interface, it indeed doesn't give
access to the underlying context.Context and the only implementation is
package-private [1]. I don't think there would be a way to update the
statfun.Context interface without introducing breaking changes, but if we
were to make that implementation public, that might be a stopgap solution.
e.g.,

```
type StatefunContext struct {
// expose embedded context
context.Context

// make the mutext private
mu sync.Mutex

// keep internals private
self Address
caller   *Address
storage  *storage
response *protocol.FromFunction_InvocationResponse
}
```

You could then do a type assertion in the handlers for this type of
context, and modify the context on it directly. It would be a bit ugly, but
may work.

```
func (s aFunc) Invoke(ctx Context, message Message) error {
  if sCtx, ok := ctx.(*statefun.StatefunContext); ok {
sCtx.Context = context.WithValue(sCtx.Context, "logger", aLogger)
  }
  // ...
}
```

Let me know what you all think,
Austin


[1]:
https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/1dfe226d85fea05a46c8ffa688175b4c0f2d4900/statefun-sdk-go/v3/pkg/statefun/context.go#L66-L73


On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03 AM Galen Warren 
wrote:

> 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 
> > 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 
> > > 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 
> > > > 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
> > > > > > > ) 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 sup

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

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 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > > 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
> > > > > > ) 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
> > > wa

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Sure, you could do that. But it's a common pattern in Go to attach things
like loggers, request ids, etc. to the context so that they don't have to
be explicitly passed around. It would be convenient to be able to follow
this pattern with Statefun.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:53 AM Till Rohrmann  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 
> 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 
> > 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  >
> > > 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
> > > > > ) 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 
> > > > 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.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Austin Cawley-Edwards]

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  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 
> 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 
> > 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  >
> > > 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
> > > > > ) 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 
> > > > 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.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > 

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Till Rohrmann]

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 
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 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > > 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
> > > > ) and then
> pull
> > > it
> > > > out downstream via FromContext (logging package -
> > > knative.dev/pkg/logging
> > > > - pkg.go.dev  > >).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman 
> > > 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.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

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  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 
> 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 
> > 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
> > > ) and then pull
> > it
> > > out downstream via FromContext (logging package -
> > knative.dev/pkg/logging
> > > - pkg.go.dev  >).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman 
> > 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  >
> > >> 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.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Till Rohrmann]

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 
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 
> 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
> > ) and then pull
> it
> > out downstream via FromContext (logging package -
> knative.dev/pkg/logging
> > - pkg.go.dev ).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman 
> 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 
> >> 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

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 
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
> ) and then pull it
> out downstream via FromContext (logging package - knative.dev/pkg/logging
> - pkg.go.dev ).
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman  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 
>> 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.
>> >
>>
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

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
) and then pull it
out downstream via FromContext (logging package - knative.dev/pkg/logging -
pkg.go.dev ).




On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM Seth Wiesman  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 
> 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.
> >
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Seth Wiesman]

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 
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.
>

Re: question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

Sorry, that should be context.WithValue, not ctx.WithValue ...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:35 PM Galen Warren 
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.
>

question about StatefunContext in golang Statefun SDK

[Galen Warren]

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.