openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dascalita Dragos <ddrag...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: devtools and make-quickstart
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2019 19:06:49 GMT
"...we should pin all the dependent images etc and make a release
available...."
+1

I also like the standalone JAR. Should we consider adding to that the API
Management features made available through OW GW, or for that we should
keep the docker-compose route ?

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:53 AM James Thomas <jthomas.uk@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 on the first point. I've seen other issues in the past with the devtools
> project based on image versioning stuff.
>
> Given devtools is more for experimental and first-steps than production
> usage - switching to the standalone controller seems like a good idea.
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 16:15, Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > this issue was opened against devtools and raises an important point:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-devtools/issues/273
> >
> > "On a separate note, will these builds eventually be versioned or will
> they
> > continue to be tagged in a backwards incompatible way? I am trying to
> > create a build process that is deterministic and currently I am unable to
> > achieve this."
> >
> > Given that we're pointing developer to make quick start still as the way
> to
> > startup and some of the dependence in this build on docker latest (now
> > nightly), I think we should pin all the dependent images etc and make a
> > release available.
> >
> > An existential question is whether we should use the standalone
> controller
> > which is faster to startup and adapt our docs accordingly.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -r
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Thomas
>

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