Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6288#discussion_r202171601
--- Diff:
flink-mesos/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/mesos/runtime/clusterframework/LaunchableMesosWorker.java
---
@@ -332,6 +334,22 @@ public String toString() {
return taskInfo.build();
}
+ /**
+ * Get port keys representing the TM's configured endpoints. This
includes mandatory TM endpoints such as
+ * data and rpc as well as optionally configured endpoints for services
such as prometheus reporter
+ *
+ * @return A deterministicly ordered Set of port keys to expose from
the TM container
+ */
+ private Set<String> getPortKeys() {
+ LinkedHashSet<String> tmPortKeys = new
LinkedHashSet<>(Arrays.asList(TM_PORT_KEYS));
+ containerSpec.getDynamicConfiguration().keySet().stream()
+ .filter(key -> key.endsWith(".port") ||
key.endsWith(".ports")) // This matches property naming convention
--- End diff --
I agree that simply taking all configuration values which end with `port`
and `ports` is problematic. What about configuration values whose value is
needed, e.g. remote ports, and should not be overwritten. For example the
`jobmanager.rpc.port` is one of these configuration values.
I would rather prefer a mesos specific configuration value which we can use
to define whose ports need to be dynamically assigned. For example
`mesos.dynamic-port-assignment: "metrics.prom.port, taskmanager.rpc.port,
taskmanager.data.port"`. What do you think?
---
