I can think of couple of ways to make what you called "kind-aware
blackbox" actions more developer-friendly:
1. Support them in the CLI (i.e., supporting both "image" and "code"
arguments). This would make the developer experience straightforard.
2. Generalize the caching/pooling mechanism to han
I was thinking we could avoid the zip.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:13 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> You can send a zip file to a docker container. So if the image is
> openwhisk/dockerskeleton or openwhisk/swift3action it works as you'd
> expect. In either case there's no docker pull. And this is doabl
You can send a zip file to a docker container. So if the image is
openwhisk/dockerskeleton or openwhisk/swift3action it works as you'd expect. In
either case there's no docker pull. And this is doable today already. What am I
missing from your explanation?
-r
On Mar 9, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Dascal
> Isn't that what we call "blackbox" (docker) actions now?
IIRC, with "blackbox", developers need to rebuild the image every time,
push it to a registry then invoke the action:
```
wsk action create --docker my-blackbox container/name
```
What I was imagining is a case where developers still dep
> Extending the thought: what if we allow users to specify a custom
container
name when creating / updating actions, in case users want to ?
Isn't that what we call "blackbox" (docker) actions now?
But in general - the reason for this work - is along these lines.
Rather than having a small number
What you're referring to is basically a "kind-aware" blackbox action, where you
get the easyness of injecting your code and the flexibility of using whatever
you want in the image as long as the interface fits.
I generally like the idea and brought it up as well once (i custom built a
blackbox
With the "runtimeManifest" property I'm wondering if we can also expose the
name of the container image instead of having to compute it in the code ?
Extending the thought: what if we allow users to specify a custom container
name when creating / updating actions, in case users want to ?
I'm think
I'm already in, Thanks, Carlos.
For the moment having @apache.org as allowed domain it's enough. We'll
see...
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Carlos Santana wrote:
> Sorry for not replying earlier.
>
> OpenWhisk Slack is open to any one you can get an invite here:
> http://slack.openwhisk.org/
