edge-runtime VS braid-spec

- Functions have a critical bug that prevent us from using in development so we decided to move to our own API servers: https://github.com/supabase/edge-runtime/issues/212

source: https://github.com/supabase/edge-runtime

we needed this to get feature parity across local, the platform, and self-hosting

Refactoring the module loader fixes a few other bugs, such edge functions erroring out when an deno.lock file is already present in the project.

Cold-starts are the time it takes for the “initial load” of an Edge Function. Because the model needs to be downloaded to the Edge Function, could starts can take anywhere from ~2-6s (based on the model). Loading the initial model and building the pipeline usually contributes to it. We are experimenting with the idea of attaching a “read-only disk” of models to our Edge Runtime which mitigate any download penalties. We’ll share more details about these optimizations in a future blog post.

[Supabase engineer & Author of the blog post]

Hi Mark, hosted Supabase Edge Functions would still run on Deno Deploy, so those limitations would still exist. However, we plan to introduce file system access via integration with Supabase Storage. This is still a rough idea stage, maybe we'll have a solid answer in a couple of months :)

For dynamic imports, we haven't looked into it since Supabase users haven't requested it. If you can open an issue on Edge Runtime repo [0] and explain how you intend to use them, we can probably work on a solution.

[0] https://github.com/supabase/edge-runtime/issues

Hi! I have a few questions:

1) What are the benefits of the reactive operating systems? Do you have any example use-cases that this does better than traditional approaches?

2) Do you find this related to functional reactive programming at all?

3) Since this is a model of concurrency with eventual consistency, do you see it benefitting from eventually-consistent OT or CRDT data types?

I am working on what might be a related model: https://braid.org and https://stateb.us. We are building a "distributed state abstraction", that we envision will end up in three places:

a) HTTP will upgrade from a state transfer to a state synchronization protocol

b) Applications will be separated into UIs on top of a "web of state" (see https://stateb.us/static/statebus-demo-3-31.mp4 ) and transition from web apps to app webs

c) Operating Systems will replace file systems with state systems; where local variables in memory can persist to disk without explicit read/write calls, and can be read/written across processes without programming overhead.

I am wondering if we are all looking at the same programming abstraction, but from different angles!

Thanks Lakshan!

I don't think my use-case is necessarily a good fit for edge functions. I am trying to achieve what Supabase realtime/multiplayer accomplishes, but generically. I participate informally with the https://braid.org IETF working group, which to over-simplify is CRDTs over HTTP with subscriptions.

I'm interested in web standards and that's what's drawn me to deno, so I'm super excited the more and more I see it being adopted. BroadcastChannel piques my interest because it is perfectly in that gray area of standardization-- it makes total sense on the client and we're on the cusp of discovering what that could look like for servers.

In deno deploy, all the instances of my service are able to be linked together by BroadcastChannel, which I'm viewing as a p2p-style architecture. Ultimately, I'm curious about how this works under the hood and if it would be possible to interoperate a BroadcastChannel between Deno Deploy, Supabase, and say a Raspberry Pi in my house.

I've gone on a bit of a tangent, but I think maybe I should get involved with the WinterCG, since now that I'm putting my thoughts to words-- seems like it fits their charter.

Yes! This is the approach we're taking at https://braid.org -- extending HTTP itself into a decentralized synchronization protocol, so that any application built on top of it can be decentralized.

Specifically, you can divide any application's protocol into two parts:

  - A data synchronization protocol

That doesn't work, because DELETE is defined to delete the entire resource. PUT is defined to replace the resource with the body, which would replace the resource with the patch. Only PATCH is defined to accept a patch and do something special with it.

Another option, though, is to use the Range-Patch spec from: https://github.com/braid-org/braid-spec

Your use-case sounds perfect for Braid: https://braid.org

This works like SSE, but is designed specifically to articulate changes to the state of HTTP/REST resources.

If you're in Javascript, you can use the braidify library: https://www.npmjs.com/package/braidify