openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominic Kim <style9...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposing Lean OpenWhisk
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2018 06:36:56 GMT
Dear David.

Pretty much make sense to me!
Thanks for the reply.

Best regards
Dominic

2018-07-17 22:39 GMT+09:00 david.breitgand@gmail.com <
david.breitgand@gmail.com>:

> Hi Dominic,
>
> Lean OpenWhisk is not supposed to run on the IoT devices such as sensors
> and actuators directly. It's supposed to run on a Gateway node that
> controls the sensors and actuators connected to it. Think AWS GreenGrass,
> Azure Functions on IoT Edge. This is the same use case. The data from a
> sensor, say a temperature sensor reading, will be sent to the Gateway via
> MQTT or HTTP or whatever and there will be a provider at the Gateway (say,
> an MQTT feed, which is outside of the OW core and this proposal) that can
> trigger an action on a trigger previously created via a feed action for
> this type of feed.
>
> This proposal is strictly about making OW a better fit for small Gateway
> form factors.
>
> It's true that there are some other tools we need to provide to make
> OW@Edge a feasible option for developers, but they are outside of the
> core and this specific proposal and merit a separate discussion.
>
> Cheers.
>
> -- david
>
> On 2018/07/16 11:40:35, Dominic Kim <style9595@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear David.
> >
> > This is an awesome idea!!
> >
> > Is this to control IoT devices programmatically?
> > If yes, there would be many different types of IoT devices especially in
> > terms of their capabilities such as lighting sensors, thermometer, robot
> > cleaner, and so on.
> >
> > Then do you have anything in mind to take care of heterogeneous sets of
> > edge nodes?
> > There is a possibility that some actions should only run on thermometers,
> > while the others should run on lighting sensors.
> >
> > If you are trying to install "one-for-all" OpenWhisk cluster rather than
> > having separate OpenWhisk clusters for each device types, how will you
> > manage heterogenous container pools and properly assign relevant actions
> to
> > them?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dominic
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-16 20:24 GMT+09:00 Markus Thoemmes <markus.thoemmes@de.ibm.com>:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > please send your PR for sure! IIRC we made the Loadbalancer pluggable
> > > specifically for this use-case. Sounds like a great addition to our
> > > possible deployment topologies.
> > >
> > > Shameless plug: Would you review the architecture I proposed here:
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/29289006d190b2c68451f7625c13bb
> > > 8020cc8e9928db66f1b0def18e@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > In theory, this could make your proposal even leaner in the future.
> Don't
> > > hear me say though we should hold this back, we can absolutely go
> forward
> > > with your implementation first. Just wanted to quickly verify this
> use-case
> > > will also work with what we might plan for in the future.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Markus
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message