https://discord.cloudflare.com logo
Join Discord
Powered by
# functions
  • g
    We’re figuring out if we can get smarter about that when we come out of beta, but yes, even static assets without any matching route will count as an invocation.
  • g
    Just get in touch if it’s an issue and we’ll be more than happy to up that 100k limit.
  • g
    For a little behind-the-scenes, what we’re doing at the moment is just compiling the functions directory into an _worker.js.
  • w
    You explained it to me already, but I didn’t fully understand, it looks like the weather.js file that I have produces static HTML when it reaches the browser. is the difference with an HTMLrewriter that that is changing content on an already existing static page versus generating one from whole cloth?
  • g
    And that gets invoked for all incoming requests.
  • g
    @User I sent a support req, we're about 99% sure of migrating almost all of our backend over to CF + CF pages and moving a bunch more into durable objects, we're super thrilled but getting hit hard by that req limit at the moment. looking at doing some more clever things with setting up another service, but need service bindings too. no worries today, but I'm working on machinery.
  • g
    AH!
  • w
    I'd think that only requests to matching routes would count as an invocation, would this behavior change when pages functions leaves beta?
  • g
    so there's no functional difference between _worker.js and all of the functions
  • i
    Yeah, you can see the file when building locally 🙂
  • i
    DX wise yeah, but functionality apparently not.
  • g
    that's good to know, I was trying to automatically strip out our SSR into individual functions.
  • g
    cloth?
  • i
  • w
    I will say, for predominantly static websites like a Jekyll blog, that would definitely make a big difference in invocations.
  • w
    Generating it from scratch,
  • w
    ah didnt see that message
  • g
    This Google form is the best place for requests to raise that limit: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe4N0BjIxu9AuissCAtYjXUovViXmdx2zopjzASaJi_SImJsw/viewform?usp=send_form Appreciate you trying out Pages and functions!
  • w
  • g
    @User perfect, one form I hadn't filled out yet. 😂
  • g
    We might change it, so don't rely on this behavior, but yeah, they're pretty functionally similar at the moment. 
    functions
    gives you simple routing behavior and an arguably easier API, but they boil down to the same thing at the moment.
  • g
    @User Does the separated Routes -> workers feature do the same thing functionally as well?
  • g
    i.e. is there an optimization path to be had today on my end?
  • g
    Absolutely. But bear in mind folks, that this is no worse than what Workers Sites does today. We'll absolutely be trying to figure out when we can know the request isn't anything functions-y, but we just don't have the answers right now.
  • w
    makes sense
  • i
    You mean deploying a separate Worker?
  • g
    Normal Workers will only be invoked if the incoming request matches the route you set.
  • g
    But seriously, if you're trying to use functions and are concerned about that limit, we'll just raise it for you!
  • g
    Definitely don't want that being a concern for you trying out functions and giving us vital feedback 🙂
  • g
    er, to be a little more specific (thank you for answering on your weekend!) - with regular workers Routes, do all of those, from a "total size of isolate" perspective get compiled down the same way? and even with the goal to shrink cold starts, is there a benefit today to, with multiple routes, splitting out those workers?
1...678...392Latest