"James W Dubee" wrote on 10/04/2018 11:45:34 AM:
> From: "James W Dubee"
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 10/04/2018 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Logstore usage during `activation get`
>
> On a similar note, I don't think we should be storing activation
&
at some point we should remov]Rodric
> Rabbah ---10/02/2018 07:30:22 PM---> By "break this" do you mean at some
> point we should remove the logs from the GET?
>
> From: Rodric Rabbah
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 10/02/2018 07:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Logstor
ect:Re: Logstore usage during `activation get`
> By "break this" do you mean at some point we should remove the logs from
the GET?
Yes.
@dubee thoughts? Since you've worked on the elastic plugin.
-r
> By "break this" do you mean at some point we should remove the logs from
the GET?
Yes.
@dubee thoughts? Since you've worked on the elastic plugin.
-r
By "break this" do you mean at some point we should remove the logs from the
GET?
In any case I will close the PR.
Thanks
Tyson
On 10/2/18, 4:21 PM, "Rodric Rabbah" wrote:
Hi Tyson - this was the intent of the API design: there is a separate
resource for LOGS and the RESULT. The
Hi Tyson - this was the intent of the API design: there is a separate resource
for LOGS and the RESULT. The reasoning also that the metadata is typically
small but the logs could be much larger. Separating the two was also intended
for easier streaming of the responses.
Because of
Hi –
I created this PR [1] due to noticing that `wsk activation get` does NOT return
logs from a LogStore which stores logs outside of the Activation entity.
But it bring up a question of: Does IBM or any other operator who might use a
custom LogStore desire to have logs included with
