[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-291?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Filipe Manana updated HAMA-291:
-------------------------------
Attachment: hama-291.patch
> bsp.groom.port is unnused and superseeded by bsp.peer.port
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HAMA-291
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-291
> Project: Hama
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Filipe Manana
> Attachments: hama-291.patch
>
>
> Most of the code uses the parameter bsp.peer.port to pickup the port for a
> Groom server.
> However we have 2 references to bsp.groom.port:
> 1) hama-default.xml
> 2) in LocalBSPCluster as "conf.set("bsp.groom.port", "40020");"
> The following patch renames those 2 entries to bsp.peer.port.
> It also changes the default value for bsp.groom.port to 61000 in order to
> match the default for bsp.peer.port (see Constants.java).
> However I'm not sure if we shouldn't do it the other way around: renaming
> bsp.peer.port to bsp.groom.port. I understand the use of "peer" is related to
> the BSPPeer class name (and other parts of the code). However, the shell
> scripts in bin/ use the naming "groom server" as well as the
> wiki/documentation. So maybe it's more appropriate to always refer to groom
> server instead of "peer"
> Definitely, having 2 different words for the same concept/entity is confusing
> to users and new developers.
> Edward, what do you think?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
