openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <>
Subject Re: Contributing an actionloop based runtime for Python - and creating an actionloop repo
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:54:19 GMT
Yes 1 Let’s make python actions faster
Let’s do latest python 3.7 as reference implementation, and maintain just
one version the latest. If others need a different version easy to use the
open source code to adjust and build their own image.
+1 runtime actionloop-python-v3.7

Yes Use commit id (7)
Use the scheme we already use in deploy-kube repo and other runtimes use
the commit id docker image tag don’t use latest, this way CICD is more

No for now
Don’t do a new repo let’s keep it in the runtime-go repo I think is easier
as a contributor to make changes to actionloop having one runtime go be the
test bed in the same repo PR. Document actionloop in the current repo

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:02 AM Michele Sciabarra <>

> Hello community,
> I have a few questions.
> I would like to contribute an actionloop based image for Python, because,
> well, the current one looks to be pretty slow and I use python a lot.
> My plan is to prepare a PR for the incubator-openwhisk-runtime-python,
> adding two runtimes as close as possible to the current ones and run the
> tests against them to make them production level.
> We have something like action-python-xxx, I would add the
> actionloop-python-xxx. I will do it both for python2 and python3
> Question 1: Is it OK to contribute a new python runtime?
> For the actionloop I think we need to tag the version of the image because
> I am currently building new images using the multistage docker building, so
> I use the existing actionloop docker image as a builder for the other
> runtimes. It is a neat way to just copy the "proxy" binary from an image to
> another.
> Question 2: Can you suggest how I should number this "actionloop" base
> image?
> Currently the code is for golang runtime, I was suggested to move the code
> in the "dockerskeleton" base but I do not see this as a great fit, I wonder
> if leave in the golang or make a separate repo.
> Actually moving in another repo would be a good case for writing
> appropriate documentation, also because I could work on describing how to
> write a "compiler" and maybe improve also this part. Currently the compiler
> is basically a python script but it could be fine if I can make it a
> json/yaml descriptor instead, so a new actionloop runtime
> Question 3: Is it ok create a new actionloop repo, or I leave it in the
> golang runtime... or I move the code in Dockerskeleton?
> --
>   Michele Sciabarra

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