[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15279904#comment-15279904
]
Alexander Rukletsov commented on MESOS-5155:
--------------------------------------------
1) Correct. We should ship MESOS-5155 in 0.29 and update quota in 0.30
(hopefully).
2) It's fine if the solution is not perfect. How about we simply use *OR*?
I'm not sure what you mean under ignoring {{remove_quota}} completely and
falling back to {{set_quotas}}.
> Consolidate authorization actions for quota.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-5155
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5155
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alexander Rukletsov
> Assignee: Zhitao Li
> Labels: mesosphere
>
> We should have just a single authz action: {{UPDATE_QUOTA_WITH_ROLE}}. It was
> a mistake in retrospect to introduce multiple actions.
> Actions that are not symmetrical are register/teardown and dynamic
> reservations. The way they are implemented in this way is because entities
> that do one action differ from entities that do the other. For example,
> register framework is issued by a framework, teardown by an operator. What is
> a good way to identify a framework? A role it runs in, which may be different
> each launch and makes no sense in multi-role frameworks setup or better a
> sort of a group id, which is its principal. For dynamic reservations and
> persistent volumes, they can be both issued by frameworks and operators,
> hence similar reasoning applies.
> Now, quota is associated with a role and set only by operators. Do we need to
> care about principals that set it? Not that much.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
