Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openwhisk.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: factoring out "runtimes" into deployment configuration
From: Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMPvFO_=zc3dEasyg3DkhQbjDe42iwV23cehf+Esm-nm462qzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:13:41 -0500
Cc: "dev@openwhisk.incubator.apache.org" <dev@openwhisk.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DBE51944-59AA-430D-A41E-A9EFE8B6419B@gmail.com>
References: <CAAC1_d6piW184HRfhanNguZjNHzQ+rT-O0c===XRP5SRpMw_+Q@mail.gmail.com> <9545803B-A957-4149-A0D5-0D7802DB333F@adobe.com> <CAMPvFO8oXP+-JYAJM2JkzytyZ=JurgVhROHxoGzQy+8BWymMXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAC1_d6Q_5Fzp2o7A5GvADMe=TO2==PUK9_sFcdOCPv5m8jOug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMPvFO_=zc3dEasyg3DkhQbjDe42iwV23cehf+Esm-nm462qzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
archived-at: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:19:49 -0000

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 mi=
ssing from your explanation?

-r

On Mar 9, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Dascalita Dragos <ddragosd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Isn't that what we call "blackbox" (docker) actions now?
>=20
> 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
> ```
>=20
> What I was imagining is a case where developers still deploy "code" but, i=
n
> addition, they get to specify which "container" to use for executing that
> code. I.e.
> ```
> wsk action create my-action ./my-action.js --kind:container/name:tag
> ```
> Assuming that `container/name` extends an existing OW container.
>=20
> Now that I'm thinking at this, I'd say that probably a more elegant
> solution would be for developers to describe the extra libs in the
> `manifest.yaml` then, at deploy time, a control-plane component of OW
> builds an optimized container to be used later when invoking the action ..=
.
> not an easier option to implement though.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:55 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> Extending the thought: what if we allow users to specify a custom
>> container
>> name when creating / updating actions, in case users want to ?
>>=20
>> 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 of fixed images per runtime,
>> we can support many more.
>>=20
>> A concern however is that we don't want to incur docker pull costs for so=
me
>> set of curated images (in the future, you can image that docker actions
>> come
>> with an explicit push operation at create time - but we're not there yet)=
.
>>=20
>> So by having an extensible list of images, it makes it easier to curate
>> action runtimes.
>>=20
>> The scenario you describe otherwise is already supported (we know there a=
re
>> users
>> who extend our nodejs base image with their own artifacts). This has the
>> benefit
>> of pulling in fewer layers.
>>=20
>> -r
>>=20