Adam B created MESOS-1188:
-----------------------------
Summary: Rename slaves/frameworks.activated/deactivated
Key: MESOS-1188
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1188
Project: Mesos
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: master
Reporter: Adam B
Assignee: Adam B
Priority: Minor
The "deactivate" terminology for slaves is especially confusing because
"disconnecting" a slave is analagous to "deactivating" a framework.
I can identify the following 3 states for slaves:
A. Connected: Slave exists in slaves.activated, slave.disconnected=false;
disconnects when a checkpointing slave hits exited().
B. Disconnected: Slave exists in slaves.activated, slave.disconnected=true;
reconnects on reregisterSlave.
C. Shutdown: Slave removed from slaves.activated, pid added to
slaves.deactivated; readded to slaves.activated on registerSlave.
I propose that we rename slaves.activated/deactivated to
slaves.running/shutdown to avoid confusion with the framework.active state and
deactivateFramework message/action. (Or perhaps registered/unregistered? Or
up/down? Or running/removed?)
Here are the framework states:
A. Active: Framework exists in frameworks.activated, framework.active=true;
goes inactive on exited().
B. Inactive: Framework exists in frameworks.activated, framework.active=false;
reactivated on reregister (if before failoverTimeout).
C. Completed: Framework moved to frameworks.completed; never goes back.
I propose that we rename frameworks.activated to frameworks.running (or
registered?), because you shouldn't have an inactive slave in slaves.activated,
but you could in slaves.running.
I accept any/all naming feedback/suggestions. I just think we need to move away
from the ambiguous/overloaded activated/deactivated terms.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
