Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change builder to sync style API and remove in-memory working queue #599

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 10, 2019
Merged

Change builder to sync style API and remove in-memory working queue #599

merged 5 commits into from
Apr 10, 2019

Conversation

astefanutti
Copy link
Member

Since the build working state is persisted in the cluster with the Build CR, there is no need for an in-memory working queue. Besides, as the builder is reused in pod build strategy synchronous flow,
the API is changed to sync style for ease of use.

… queue

Since the build working state is persisted in the cluster with the
Build CR, there is no need for an in-memory working queue. Besides,
as the builder is reused in pod build strategy synchronous flow,
the API is changed to sync style for ease of use.
@astefanutti astefanutti changed the title Change default builder to sync style API and remove in-memory working queue Change builder to sync style API and remove in-memory working queue Apr 10, 2019
@nicolaferraro
Copy link
Member

Unrelated, but to solve that volume issue... what about:

  • Creating a pod with a init container and a std container
  • The init container is the camel k builder that writes data into a emptyDir volume
  • The std container is the kaniko pod that pushes the image into the registry

That is independent from the volume used as cache.. Wdyt?

@astefanutti
Copy link
Member Author

That is a very good idea, conceptually better than using a volume for ephemeral data such as build output.

There is still the question of the Kaniko cache that gets warmed in a separated pod, as well as the Maven cache potentially. But these may be considered optional.

@lburgazzoli
Copy link
Contributor

@astefanutti @nicolaferraro is something to be done in this pr or can be done in a dedicated one ?

@astefanutti
Copy link
Member Author

@lburgazzoli it should be done in a dedicated PR.

@lburgazzoli lburgazzoli merged commit 453d0dd into apache:master Apr 10, 2019
@astefanutti astefanutti deleted the pr-27 branch April 11, 2019 07:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants