Shall I change the Activity plugin to read the action prams from
JSONode(Activity Configuration) instead of hash map I am using now?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Nadeesh Dilanga <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi,
> With the health check I hit on a road block and spent time to figure out
> how. But could not get through. Hence asking for some help.
>
> In my activity plugin, in  executeAsynch(), I am reading action parameters
> from map (Map<String, T2Reference> map). (Not from JsonNode set from
> Activity.configure()). I thought that is the correct way(correct me if I am
> wrong)
>
> ex: action=start-container  and name=myTestContainer1
> action=inspect-image and image-id=img123
>
> From HealthCheck visit() interface, how can I get hold to this input
> parameter map similar to what I get in Activity#executeAsynch() .
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nadeesh Dilanga <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> If you are talking about a race condition to the same docker (cluster),
>> it does not make a difference whether plugin is in same JVM or not. Docker
>> server side handles container creation atomically. Also Docker will make
>> throws an exception if there is a container already running with the same
>> name/id. Which will return a error JSON from the plugin.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Alan Williams <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31-Jul-16 08:47, Nadeesh Dilanga wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Related to the validation piece, forgot to mention that Activity plugin
>>>> already checks those validations before it runs even now. ex: if I try
>>>> to
>>>> start an already started container, it gives me a json response
>>>> mentioning
>>>> the container already started.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that is reasonable. An alternative approach would be to take the
>>> running container. That, though, could lead to problems. What will happen
>>> if I try to run two instances of the activity at the same time i.e. same
>>> container. We will need to ensure that any conflict is prevented.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to