Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
0001: Service Config #2
0001: Service Config #2
Changes from 9 commits
1e38e4a
4d6cb33
50825fe
e90aa6e
c1dcc79
3c275ec
34499b3
813dc7a
e377ab2
467597a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is a config file accessed by the providers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Config is going to be a singleton inited and loaded in the Gateway class and then passed itself or specific config like HTTP Server Config to the corresponding structs that needs it. Something like that. I did not mention that detail here as the contract is more important to decide on and discuss then to focus on how we get there under the hood.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree. Should be YAML.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mkrueger12 our conversation around embeddings API in GEP0002 and ideas to support TTS & STT models have opened my eyes on the previously proposed strategy which is to have one uniform list of pools that support all API Glide providers.
I think that if you consider these two type of APIs, it's clear that the idea is not super viable. There is no reason to impose LLM lifecycle on something like STT/TTS. They are just too different. And we should take care of them considering their specific.
Language, embeddings, transcribers, synthesizers are just too different to treat them the same way and we might end up being in trouble trying to go that route.
So the new idea is to have type-specific model pools (e.g. language, embeddings, transcribers, synthesizers). This should aid separating logic needed (fallbacking, load balancing, unified request/response schemas, etc). for one type of models from logic that is appropriate in another.
The current config examples have reflected this approach.
Feel free to take a look and let know how does that feel 🙌
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep this makes complete sense. Lets go that route