Github user ykrips commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tajo/pull/280#issuecomment-65643665
Hello @hyunsik ,
Thank you for your appreciation.
I totally understand what a diagnosis phase have. This is my missing point,
and I will add it to this patch.
Now let's discuss about the naming issue. At first, I feel that this rule
engine and some pre-defined rules will cover overall functionalities of Tajo
cluster components. For instance, these rules will check or verify status of
connectivity, configurations, and so on. With my rule design, I gave a general
name to these classes. Otherwise, I think that it could be limiting the scope
of rule implementation.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
