openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michele Sciabarra <mich...@sciabarra.com>
Subject Re: MiniWhisk: what you think?
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:43:31 GMT
Share the code and let’s collaborate. If you remember I started the
Openwhisk runtime from your code, there are still a few lines of
code left :)
--
  Michele Sciabarra
  michele@sciabarra.com



On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, at 7:38 PM, James Thomas wrote:
> Michele,
>
> I'd also started a project this month called "miniwsk" around local
> development - great minds! :)
>
> I had a similar idea about an instance of the platform that
> would spin up> containers locally. My approach was to implement the OpenWhisk
> platform API> using a stub server that would execute the actions using Docker in
> the host> system. I also wanted to use Go lang for the mock server so that
> it would> be a simple binary I could start on demand. Implementing the
> API means I> can just use all the normal OpenWhisk tools without modification by
> pointing them to localhost.
>
> It's still in the super-early stages of development so I'm not
> sure when> I'll have it ready for publishing... I wasn't going to handle re-
> build go> based stuff as your idea does. It was purely a stub server to invoke
> containers on demand.
>
> On 25 July 2018 at 15:56, Michele Sciabarra
> <openwhisk@sciabarra.com> wrote:>
> > Hello,  in the process of developing some examples for the
> > goproxy, I> > realized I want a tool to make easier developing go actions
> > locally. While> > it is generally acceptable to deploy your actions straight
to the
> > IBM Cloud> > for example when you code in Javascript (or Python) it is less
> > desiderable> > for Go because compilation time in the cloud is not so fast
as it
> > is when> > compiled locally, and you have the additional time of uploading
a
> > binary> > that is generally bigger than javascript actions.
> >
> > SO I ended up with this idea of the "miniwhisk". I am posting here
> > to see> > if  it is acceptable or... there are better solutions.
> >
> > My idea of the miniwhisk is a "single action " executor. It
> > should work> > more or less this way:
> >
> > $ miniwhisk /path/of/action  -runtime openwhisk/actionloop-go-
> > v1.10:master> > -watch *.go -build make -action demo
> >
> > This command will launch the runtime "openwhisk/actionloop-go-
> > v1.10:master"> > using docker run, then will watch the files specified with
"-w".
> > When a> > file changes, it will execute the build command (-build) and then
> > execute> > and "init" of the action runtime, post the action to the runtime
as
> > an init.> >
> > Additional (and most importantly) it starts a webserver that will
> > listen> > to /path/of/action for GET and POST and will then translate
> > requests in> > appropriate /run posts for the runtime.
> >
> > Basically it is a tool to develop an action in go locally
> > simulating what> > would happen when run in the real OpenWhisk.
> >
> >
> > How does sound the idea? Is it worth the effort?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >   Michele Sciabarra
> >   openwhisk@sciabarra.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Thomas


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message