On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Nan Zhu <[email protected]> wrote: >> In the first case your thread pool is the "shared data structure", in the > second case this map of handles is the "shared data structure", so I don't > understand why you think there is any difference. > > I do not understand why there is no difference > > In your words, when the thread pool is the "shared data structure", we do > not need to involve any synchronization when applying CRUD to the handles. > If you shared "some map or list" between servlet threads and monitoring > thread, you have to handle synchronization of this "map or list".
The JDK has many implementations of concurrent lists and maps. You don't need to write anything. The code to deal with thread pool vs. the alternative approach would be different, yes, but you make it sound like you'd have to implement some really complicated data structure when that is definitely not the case. > You mixed two topics again Please don't go down this path. I'm not mixing topic. I made suggestions that you seemed to not be willing to address, or misunderstood. > Topic 2 - How we discuss: I am surprised that you blamed my way to discuss I didn't blame anyone. I'm trying to get you to address my suggestion and trying to understand some of your replies, which really were a bit puzzling to me. > OK, I found it, > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site/ResourceManagerRest.html#Cluster_Applications_API, > which is a restful API, > > two concerns > > 1. change Livy's current impl is based on YarnClient not restful API, are > we going to change it? If the non-REST API doesn't have such API, then great, you addressed my suggestion. I don't think it's worth it to rewrite the whole YARN handling code to use the REST path here. That wasn't hard, was it. -- Marcelo
