[discuss]Add protect feature to avoid update or delete actions by mistake

As more and more production system uses openwhisk, It seems we need some feature to protect their service safe from mistake. ​ for example, when users create action use like below(add annotation "lock":true) curl -X PUT -H "Content-type: application/json" --user

Re: Reminder & Call for Topics: Tech. Interchange call this week, Wednesday!

Thanks Cosmin! Am sure the community would very much like to hear what you have been working on. I will add you to the agenda. Kind regards, Matt From: Cosmin Stanciu To: "dev@openwhisk.apache.org" Date: 01/22/2019 04:58 AM Subject:Re: Reminder & Call for Topics: Tech.

RE: [discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container

here is the patch: https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/4225 -Original Message- From: "蒋鹏程" To: ; Cc: Sent: 2019-01-22 (星期二) 11:27:56 Subject: [discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container ### Background I think openwhisk needs some operation tools(page or API)

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

> On 22 Jan 2019, at 14:55, Michele Sciabarra wrote: > > I already designed and implemented the feature as being "completely > optional". > > The point is if the community approves that runtimes may be used as websocket > servers (reusing the runtime machinery) deploying them in

Re: Reminder & Call for Topics: Tech. Interchange call this week, Wednesday!

I had to update the bitly URL for the Tech Int. meeting on the Google calendar as I updated meeting times based upon current time of year. full url:

RE: [discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container

here is the patch: https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/4225 ​ -Original Message- From: "蒋鹏程" To: ; Cc: Sent: 2019-01-22 (星期二) 11:27:56 Subject: [discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container ### Background I think openwhisk needs some operation tools(page or

[discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container

Background # I think openwhisk needs some operation tools(page or API) to admin, for example: real-time status of Action, Controller, Invoker, etc. Change prewarm runtime container for invokers here, we just discuss Change prewarm container for invokers Requirements # Admin can add/delete

[discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container

@markusthoemmes @rabbah ### Background I think openwhisk needs some operation tools(page or API) to admin, for example: * real-time status of Action, Controller, Invoker, etc. * Change prewarm runtime container for invokers here, we just discuss `Change prewarm container for invokers` ###

[discuss]Operation-invoker side-change prewarm container

Background # I think openwhisk needs some operation tools(page or API) to admin, for example: - real-time status of Action, Controller, Invoker, etc. - Change prewarm runtime container for invokers here, we just discuss

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Michele Sciabarra wrote on 01/22/2019 09:55:03 AM: > > I already designed and implemented the feature as being "completely > optional". > > The point is if the community approves that runtimes may be used as > websocket servers (reusing the runtime machinery) deploying them in > Kubernetes (they

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

I already designed and implemented the feature as being "completely optional". The point is if the community approves that runtimes may be used as websocket servers (reusing the runtime machinery) deploying them in Kubernetes (they are docker containers after all) or the community prefers

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Thanks Markus. At this stage I am writing an example that uses OpenWhisk actions alone. Trying to understand if it is appropriate or not to have this websocket feature allowing to deploy action runtimes "alone" in kubernets as websocket servers...If there is not consensus I my drop my

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Hi, I have very little knowledge of OpenWhisk internals so bear with me if this is not practical - but from a community point of view: On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michele Sciabarra wrote: > ...Again, all of this is a proposal. I won't be upset if there is not > agreement I think in

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Answers: 1. impact on the performances is zero if you do not enable it. To have web sockets you have to explicitly set them with the environment variable OW_WEBSOCKET. If it is not set, no handler is added to the runtime. The impact so far is only checking an environment variable at init

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Yeah I agree to measure how much throughput you can get with a single container with high number of concurrent actions invoke sharing the single producer. And as you aware this is only applicable on a deployment were you would need to deploy to allow multiconcurrency. As this moment this is

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Yes I understand, I was just pointing out for the benefits of others about the 2 topics. Yes I agree better to have it in the openwhisk upstream than a espérate thing. Would be good to measure any performance impact by having the extra /wss web socket server. The scope of initial changes

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Hi, leaving a few remarks. Thanks as always for your hard work Michele, you're cranking out a lot of stuff! Great job! 1. On the initial problem statement (and for your book): Have you considered using an action with a very high concurrency setting for your problem? The usual issue with these

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Yes but if the patch is available it is possible to use an action runtime as an interim solution for providing a WebSocket server using a Kubernetes cluster. I did it because I am writing the chapter "messaging" of the book on OpenWhisk, and discovered that it is not recommended to use an

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

I think there are 2 features here 1. Re use an action as is to be injected into a runtime that supports the websocket 2. Have OpenWhisk gain improvements by the invoker communicating with with user container with a websocket stream vs a 1 http req /run. It might be useful to show the

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

I guess then this feature is of interest and worth to be merged, as it provides a basis on the runtimes to implement websockets as a general feature then. Am I correct ? :) -- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com - Original message - From: Carlos Santana To:

Re: Reminder & Call for Topics: Tech. Interchange call this week, Wednesday!

Hi Matt, Chetan and I, we've been working on a project that consumes the user-events from Kafka, stores them in Prometheus and displays the numbers in Grafana. The project can be found in github [1], and if you guys are interested and there is time left, I would be glad to talk about it in the

Re: [Long] I implemented websocket support for the Golang and related runtimes:

Thanks Michele for the clarification My knative remark was only about to scale to zero, meaning when there is times that no one is using my app no pod/container is running at all. The main.go code can still be loaded via ConfigMap in Knative or without in Kubernetes. It still uses the same