►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Workflow Meeting - 2018-07-24
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
D
C
D
E
Think
I
understand
your
concern.
This
is
literally
so
you're.
What
you're
suggesting
is
that
in
all
the
other
states
other
than
the
actual
start
state,
the
this
boolean
would
be
false
right.
So
what
I
would
suggest
here
is
that,
in
fact,
if
the
boolean,
you
know
that
that
field
start
is
not
a
present,
it
defaults
to
being
false.
E
So
you
know
if
it's
not
a
start
state,
we
just
simply
leave
that
that
field
out
and-
and
that's
that
typically
happens,
you
know
if
there
would
be
default
values
that
if
the
field
is
not
present,
it
takes
on
a
on
a
very
specific
value.
In
this
case,
it
would
be
false.
Well,
all
we
would
really
need
to
do
is
to
have
one
start.
One
state
with
that
shows
start
equal
to
true.
E
E
E
A
Thank
you,
yeah,
great
okay.
So
that's
that's
good!
Okay,
so
let
me
see
any
other
state
and
then
so
team
I
think
yeah
things.
That's
see
again,
hero
here.
Okay,
you
are
saying,
okay,
how
do
you
pass
a
result
of
action
to
the
next
state?
In
case
of
in
case
of
para,
you
have
released
our
output
to
the
next
day.
Yes,
we
have
a
list
of
output
to
the
next
state.
This
is
I
solved.
Now
here
are
true,
is
soft,
right,
okay,
okay,
yeah!
A
A
So
if
the
estate
has
two
functions,
so
those
two
function
can
be
executed
in
sequence
or
in
parallel.
Okay,
I
understand,
you
know
you
can
break
that
into
two
state
if
it's
in
sequence,
right
decide
what
to
me.
Yeah,
okay,
I
think
this
is
up
to
the
user.
We
provide
this,
for
example
a
TSA
okay.
If
you
have
two
functions
executed
in
sequence,
you
can
break
them
up
into
two
state
or
you
can
just
you
know,
put
into
a
one
state,
but
these
two
function.
A
Basically
in
sequence,
you
know
it's
up
to
the
user,
how
they
want
to
the
users
how
they
want
to
position
it
or
how
they
want
to
write.
The
workflow
on
we
I
think
probably
is
not.
We
do
not
need
to
put
any
restriction
there.
You
know
because
yeah,
that's
my
take.
What
do
you?
What
do
I?
Do
you
think
or
the
other
thing.
D
A
Another
is
yours
again,
his
result,
I
do
assume
that
RoR
do
that's
because
result,
I
do
is
not
araguari.
Oh
I'm,
just
wondering
if
we
know
successfully
was
writing.
Example
yeah.
This
also,
you
know,
is
this
result?
Okay,
so
if
you
can,
you
know
result
that
would
be
good.
Okay.
How
about
the
next
yeah
next
thing,
what
you
mean
you
propose
parallel
state
right,
I,
think
that's
a
good
suggestion.
I
think
you
know,
or
they
I
did
in
and
and
also
so
have
you
take
a
look
at
that
parallel
state.
D
A
Okay,
so
maybe
we
will
go
to
that.
Your
comments
later
can
I
just
just
go
to
sequence.
One
by
one
is
okay,
yeah,
just
say:
okay,
so
the
parallel
state,
that's
resolved,
yeah
I
know.
If
you
have
another
comment
we
can
go
to
that.
You
have
another
comment
say
we
specify
range
condition
such
as
you
know.
D
A
A
A
E
E
Okay,
so
the
the
ability
to
have
an
action
with
with
a
set
of
actions
in
both
those
states,
both
the
operation
state
and
the
event
State
essentially
is
a
convenience.
It
allow
us,
you
know,
within
a
say,
an
event
State
or
an
operation
stage.
You
actually
had
the
ability
to
to
run
these
functions,
set
of
functions
in
sequence
or
in
parallel,
and
otherwise
you
have
to
now.
D
E
E
E
A
So
so
I
think
I
got
your
point
a
hero.
So
if
we
have
this
parallel
state
right
implicitly,
you
know
it's.
If
there's
no
parallel
stay
inside
the
on
operation
state
or
inside
the
event
state.
That
means
it's
a
sequential
right.
That's
your
point
right
yeah!
Just
we
can
think
about
this.
You
know,
maybe
we
think
about
this,
and
also
maybe
Luisi
think
about
this,
and
then
you
know,
I
will
I
always
think
about
this.
We
probably,
let's
see
you
know
whether
we
we
really
need
that
action
or
not.
A
A
What
do
you
think
about
here?
Oh
I,
know
you
have
thought
through
this
very
well
and
I'm
thinking
you
know,
so
you
are
assuming
always
inside
it
inside
the
operation
state.
There's
enough,
there's
a--!
If
it's
parallel
security
parallel,
so
you
you
think
it
will
always
put
a
parallel
state
inside
it.
Actually,
we
can
also
allow
the
user
to
put
a
parallel
function.
It's
not
parallel
state
inside
it,
so
the
user
can
put.
A
You
know,
functions
SQ
in
sequence
inside
that
operation
state
or
they
can
put
that
you
know
the
functions
executing
in
parallel
is
that
an
operation
state
or
they
can
put
a
parallel
state
inside
our
operation
state.
That
means
you
know
that
allows
for
in
a
more
complicated
use
case,
this
kind
of
real
estate,
but
I
think
he
may
be
majority
use
cases
probably
do
not
need
this
parallel
state.
It
only
needs
email,
either
sequential
or
parallel
execution
of
the
functions
so
I
think
you
know
put
in
that.
D
A
Because
in
most
cases
you
know
I
think
he
no
inquest
most
cases.
People
probably
do
not
need
this.
You
know
complication
or
parallel
state
embedded
state,
so
they
can
just
say.
Ok,
this
function,
basically
in
parallel
or
in
sequence,
but
a
fair
use
case
is
really
you
know
complicated
and
they
need
it.
You
know
on
those
embedded
state
like
you
know,
inside
operation,
state
or
inside
event,
state
they
need
another.
You
know
some
other
space
right.
Then
we
can
use
this
parallel.
State
I.
C
A
C
F
A
Think
this
parallel
state
was
introduced
because
you
know
not
hero
was
thinking.
You
know
they
are
some
use
cases
which
could
be
complicated
and
a
bit
more
complicated
use
cases
and
those
use
cases
will
require.
You
know,
like
you
know,
on
more
than
just
you
know,
functions
are
executed
in
parallel,
so
they
could
be
like
you
know.
A
Some
functions
execute
so,
for
example,
in
that
car,
so
there
could
be
like
two
functions
so
in
that
state
operation
state
right
there
are
two-
is
going
to
branch
out
to
do
this
two
to
two
different
states
and
like
oh,
we'll,
call
this
parallel
state
and
one
state
inside
it.
They
could
receive.
You
know
another
event,
then
the
other
state
might
not
need
to
handle
that
event.
A
D
A
D
A
E
E
Talking
about
the
second
one,
so
you
know
agree
that
no,
what
we've
talked
about
typically,
is
that
if
we
have
an
event
source,
we
simply
get
the
directional
stream
of
events
from
that
source
without
any
responses
going
back
but
I'm
thinking
about.
Maybe
there
are
other
instances
where
an
event
source
map
may
actually
have,
or
than
it
may
be
responses
going
back
to
that
source.
That's
what
I'm
showing
this
it's
it's
not
necessary
that
we
actually
have
that
call
a
that
response.
Filter
to
show
it
in
the
diagram.
A
So
the
first
I
think
the
first
one
you
know
you
say
would
like
a
filter
between
the
functions,
functions,
right,
yeah,
I,
think
I
also
think
that's
a
good
suggestion.
I
think
we
need
to
add
that,
in
terms
of
the
response
to
the
event
source,
we
cannot.
We
do
not
the
coupie
some
events,
choices
that
need
response
right
so
is
to
our
point,
say
you
know
no
event
sauce,
you
know,
needs
response
from
the
workflow
decide
your
point.
A
G
G
F
G
A
So
if
they're
awesome
so
I,
think
probably
you
know
we
cannot
say
there's
no.
We
cannot
say
what
you
100%
say.
You
know
that
you
know
none
of
the
events
cause.
You
would
expect
a
response
from
the
workflow.
We
some
you
know
some
result.
So
maybe
we
should.
You
know
it's
better
to
just
keep
that
typically
here
this
response,
just
in
case,
if
there
is
an
even
source
that
would
expect
a
use
case,
expect
a
response.
Then
we
have
it
covered
yeah.
E
I
mean
we
could
certainly
update
the
diagram
to
make
quite
clear
that
there
are,
you
know,
event
sources
that
only
emit
events,
but
don't
expect
any
responses
coming
back
and
there
are
other
event
sources
that
do
in
fact
have
responses
and
expect
this
once
it's
coming
back
and
with
with
data
attached
or
a
payload
attached
to
them,
and
that
filter
can
be
used
to
actually
transform
that
that
data
in
some
fashion.
So
you
know,
we
could
just
add,
add
another
diagram
to
clarify
that
add
some
text
to
clarify
that.
C
E
A
A
H
A
H
A
D
D
A
A
I
D
I
A
G
A
So
it's
a
like
the
previous
one,
so
the
last
state
give
me
information
from
the
previous
span,
but
the
previous
one
will
give
information
from
this
is
previous
one.
So
actually
the
last
state
actually
get
the
information
is
like
a
cumulative
or
filtered
information
of
all
the
of
all
the
previous
states.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
supposed,
there
are
three
states
right,
one
state,
two
and
stage
three
right
so
who
is
going
to
get
information
from
state,
1,
okay
and
then
after
the
filter,
whatever
filter,
they
use
the
one
to
define
right.
Of
course,
if
user
can
choose
not
a
different
any
filter
or
whatever
filter
so
stick
to
got
that
information
and
then
the
state
who
is
going
to
pass
the
information
to
state
three?
B
G
Opposed
to
just
saying,
like
you
know,
for
instance,
in
a
parallel
workflow
I
think
we
talked
about
last
minute.
The
next
state
would
get
essentially
a
list
of
all
of
the
outputs
of
previous
States
they're.
Parallel
I
was
wondering,
if
you
can,
can
you
generalize
that
so
that
you
know?
Basically,
everything
gets
more
or
less
of
math.
G
A
So
so
yeah
right
so
for
the
parallel
state,
because
it's
Wednesday
wrong
chart
to
multiple
state
right.
So
that's
why
you
know,
for
example,
if
from
stick
one,
they
branch
out
to
parallel
state,
you
know
they're,
three
power,
real
estate,
parallel
state,
one
parallel
state
to
two
parallel
state
to
three
right.
So
these
two
one,
two
two
and
two
three
they're
going
to
get
input
from
from
the
state.
One
still
get
it
from
the
previous
state.
It
doesn't
cut
it
from
you
know.
A
A
A
A
D
A
F
D
E
E
E
Know
what
we
see
in
something
like
I
think
it's
in
step
functions.
They
have
a
parallel
Sneden
and
there's
a
single
step
function,
value.
Thank
you,
things.
It's
treated
and
it's
managed
as
a
single
entity.
It's
not
a
separate,
managed
entities,
your
managed
entity,
it's
not
a
separate
thing,
although
internally,
certainly
there
is
concurrency
in
terms
of
the
parallel
execution,
it
still
manages
to
yeah.
A
Yeah,
so
maybe
so
maybe
not
here,
would
you
like
to
share
you
our
diagram
again,
so
people
can
understand
that
use
case
better,
stop
sharing
because
I
think
that's
important.
Otherwise,
you
know
okay.
E
A
On
the
hero,
probably
you
can
add
your
use
case
to
this
back,
because
we
have
a
use
case
section.
Maybe
you
can
add
it.
You
are
yours
case.
Is
there
I
this
diagram
there
so
that
you
know
we
know?
Okay,
there
is
such
a
use
case.
Then
we
can
walk
through.
We
can
go
through
the
document
to
see
whether
it
address
you
our
use
case.
A
A
Now,
here
I
was
subject
that
you
put
your
are
yours
case.
You
know
yours
case,
and
this
and
I
cannot
see
clearly
this
diagram,
but
if
you
can
put
your
use
case
and
the
use
case
diagram
in
the
intersection
in
the
useful
section
of
the
document
that
will
help
people,
you
know
help
us
to
understand
your
use
case
and
see
that
oh,
we
really
need
a
parallel
state.
Yeah
I
think
I
feel
we
needed
to
to
support
those
complicated
use
cases
I
think
that's
a
key
he's.
A
Okay
sounds
good;
okay,
any
other
comments
or
questions.
A
Think
you
know
I
would
like
you
know
so,
I
think
you
know
week.
We
have
you
know
in
next
meeting.
If
we
do
not
have
you
know
a
lot
of
comments,
I
think
your
I
would
like
to
put
these
this
into
some
hip-hop,
and
then
you
know
later
you
know
people
can.
You
can
have
your
you
can
pour
you
know
new
PR
modified
or
you
know,
I
did
more
sections
how's
that?
What
do
you
think?
What
does
everyone
think.
H
A
Okay,
good,
how
about
other
people?
If
no
objection
I,
think
okay
I
would
eat
this
for
open
for
comments
for
maybe
one
or
two
more
meetings.
And
then
you
know
you
can
kind
of
wrap
this
document
up
and
then
I
put
it
into
some
hip-hop
for
the
workflow.
A
Workflow
and
specification
document
on,
but
of
course,
if
you
know
we
have
a
lot
of
comments
coming
in
then
we're
going
to
keep
evolving
this.
But
again
you
know
no
matter
what
you
know.
Everyone
is
free.
You
know
I
encouraged
to
modify
it
or
I'd
new
things
too,
to
this
spec
to
make
it
more
on
how
to
say,
make
it
more
flexible
and
comprehensive
to
support
all
the
use
cases
you
have
yeah.