This is the initial step towards redefining Lumi as a library that runs
atop vanilla Node.js/V8, rather than as its own runtime.
This change is woefully incomplete but this includes some of the more
stable pieces of my current work-in-progress.
The new structure is that within the sdk/ directory we will have a client
library per language. This client library contains the object model for
Lumi (resources, properties, assets, config, etc), in addition to the
"language runtime host" components required to interoperate with the
Lumi resource monitor. This resource monitor is effectively what we call
"Lumi" today, in that it's the thing orchestrating plans and deployments.
Inside the sdk/ directory, you will find nodejs/, the Node.js client
library, alongside proto/, the definitions for RPC interop between the
different pieces of the system. This includes existing RPC definitions
for resource providers, etc., in addition to the new ones for hosting
different language runtimes from within Lumi.
These new interfaces are surprisingly simple. There is effectively a
bidirectional RPC channel between the Lumi resource monitor, represented
by the lumirpc.ResourceMonitor interface, and each language runtime,
represented by the lumirpc.LanguageRuntime interface.
The overall orchestration goes as follows:
1) Lumi decides it needs to run a program written in language X, so
it dynamically loads the language runtime plugin for language X.
2) Lumi passes that runtime a loopback address to its ResourceMonitor
service, while language X will publish a connection back to its
LanguageRuntime service, which Lumi will talk to.
3) Lumi then invokes LanguageRuntime.Run, passing information like
the desired working directory, program name, arguments, and optional
configuration variables to make available to the program.
4) The language X runtime receives this, unpacks it and sets up the
necessary context, and then invokes the program. The program then
calls into Lumi object model abstractions that internally communicate
back to Lumi using the ResourceMonitor interface.
5) The key here is ResourceMonitor.NewResource, which Lumi uses to
serialize state about newly allocated resources. Lumi receives these
and registers them as part of the plan, doing the usual diffing, etc.,
to decide how to proceed. This interface is perhaps one of the
most subtle parts of the new design, as it necessitates the use of
promises internally to allow parallel evaluation of the resource plan,
letting dataflow determine the available concurrency.
6) The program exits, and Lumi continues on its merry way. If the program
fails, the RunResponse will include information about the failure.
Due to (5), all properties on resources are now instances of a new
Property<T> type. A Property<T> is just a thin wrapper over a T, but it
encodes the special properties of Lumi resource properties. Namely, it
is possible to create one out of a T, other Property<T>, Promise<T>, or
to freshly allocate one. In all cases, the Property<T> does not "settle"
until its final state is known. This cannot occur before the deployment
actually completes, and so in general it's not safe to depend on concrete
resolutions of values (unlike ordinary Promise<T>s which are usually
expected to resolve). As a result, all derived computations are meant to
use the `then` function (as in `someValue.then(v => v+x)`).
Although this change includes tests that may be run in isolation to test
the various RPC interactions, we are nowhere near finished. The remaining
work primarily boils down to three things:
1) Wiring all of this up to the Lumi code.
2) Fixing the handful of known loose ends required to make this work,
primarily around the serialization of properties (waiting on
unresolved ones, serializing assets properly, etc).
3) Implementing lambda closure serialization as a native extension.
This ongoing work is part of pulumi/pulumi-fabric#311.
This changes the RPC interfaces between Lumi and provider ever so
slightly, so that we can track default properties explicitly. This
is required to perform accurate diffing between inputs provided by
the developer, inputs provided by the system, and outputs. This is
particularly important for default values that may be indeterminite,
such as those we use in the bridge to auto-generate unique IDs.
Otherwise, we fail to reapply defaults correctly, and trick the
provider into thinking that properties changed when they did not.
This is a small step towards pulumi/lumi#306, in which we will defer
even more responsibility for diffing semantics to the providers.
This change serializes unknown properties anywhere in the entire
property structure, including deeply embedded inside object maps, etc.
This is now done in such a way that we can recover both the computed
nature of the serialized property, along with its expected eventual
type, on the other side of the RPC boundary.
This will let us have perfect fidelity with the new bridge's view on
computed properties, rather than special casing them on "one side".
As part of the bridge bringup, I've discoverd that the property state
returned from Creates does *not* always equal the state that is then
read from calls to Get. (I suspect this is a bug and that they should
be equivalent, but I doubt it's fruitfal to try and track down all
occurrences of this; I bet it's widespread). To cope with this, we will
return state from Create and Update, instead of issuing a call to Get.
This was a design we considered to start with and frankly didn't have
a super strong reason to do it the current way, other than that it seemed
elegant to place all of the Get logic in one place.
Note that providers may choose to return nil, in which case we will read
state from the provider in the usual Get style.
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
