[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14652859#comment-14652859
]
Yan Xu edited comment on MESOS-2968 at 8/11/15 9:31 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------
[~tnachen] If we define the Backend as not provisioning images but rather
provisioning a list of {{rootfs}}, then we can define the API as
{code}
class Backend
{
...
virtual process::Future<Nothing> provision(
const std::vector<std::string>& roots,
const std::string& directory) = 0;
}
{code}
The caller is responsible for figuring out how the layers should be resolved
and ordered in this list. This way the {{Backend}} can be unified for AppC and
Docker. How does it sound?
BTW I think {{Backend::provision()}} can be confused with
Provisioner::provision() and the word {{Backend}} is not as self-documenting as
{{Installer::installer()}}. What do you think?
/cc [~idownes]
was (Author: xujyan):
[~tnachen] If we define the Backend as not provisioning images but rather
provisioning a list of {{rootfs}}, then we can define the API as
{code}
class Backend
{
...
virtual process::Future<Nothing> provision(
const std::vector<Path>& roots,
const Path& directory) = 0;
}
{code}
The caller is responsible for figuring out how the layers should be resolved
and ordered in this list. This way the {{Backend}} can be unified for AppC and
Docker. How does it sound?
BTW I think {{Backend::provision()}} can be confused with
Provisioner::provision() and the word {{Backend}} is not as self-documenting as
{{Installer::installer()}}. What do you think?
/cc [~idownes]
> Implement shared copy based provisioner backend
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-2968
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2968
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: containerization
> Reporter: Timothy Chen
> Assignee: Timothy Chen
> Labels: mesosphere
>
> Currently Appc and Docker both implemented its own copy backend, but most of
> the logic is the same where the input is just a image name with its
> dependencies.
> We can refactor both so that we just have one implementation that is shared
> between both provisioners, so appc and docker can reuse the shared copy
> backend.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
