[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1711?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15421267#comment-15421267
]
Joshua Cohen edited comment on AURORA-1711 at 8/15/16 4:59 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Does forcing the client to make the query become unnecessarily expensive? The
aurora command line client can also benefit from this logic in the scenario
where you're accessing the API through a proxy (e.g. the {{startJobUpdate}} cal
is sent through the proxy to the scheduler, the update begins, but for whatever
reason the proxy times out the request to the client, at which point the client
automatically retries the request and gets an error about the update already
being in progress). In that scenario, the client will essentially *always* make
the query to see if the update is active, so why not just have the scheduler
implicitly make the check when processing a {{startJobUpdate}} request that
includes the metadata? I think it would also makes sense, in this case, to move
away from a generic "metadata" field and towards an explicit "client update
identifier" field so that the scheduler is not enforcing its own meaning on
what from the outside appears to be data whose purpose should be unknown to the
scheduler.
was (Author: joshua.cohen):
Does forcing the client to make the query become unnecessarily expensive? The
aurora command line client can also benefit from this logic in the scenario
where you're accessing the API through a proxy (e.g. the {{startUpdateRequest}}
cal is sent through the proxy to the scheduler, the update begins, but for
whatever reason the proxy times out the request to the client, at which point
the client automatically retries the request and gets an error about the update
already being in progress). In that scenario, the client will essentially
*always* make the query to see if the update is active, so why not just have
the scheduler implicitly make the check when processing a {{startJobUpdate}}
request that includes the metadata? I think it would also makes sense, in this
case, to move away from a generic "metadata" field and towards an explicit
"client update identifier" field so that the scheduler is not enforcing its own
meaning on what from the outside appears to be data whose purpose should be
unknown to the scheduler.
> Allow client to store metadata on Update entity
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AURORA-1711
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1711
> Project: Aurora
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Scheduler
> Reporter: David McLaughlin
>
> I have a use case where I'm programmatically starting updates via the Aurora
> API and sometimes the request to the scheduler times out or fails, even
> though the update is written to storage and started.
> I'd like to be able to store some unique identifier on the update so that we
> can reconcile this state later. We can make this generic by allowing clients
> to store arbitrary metadata on an update (similar to how they do it with job
> configuration).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
