> On June 26, 2015, 9:44 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/exec/exec.cpp, lines 496-497
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35910/diff/1/?file=993586#file993586line496>
> >
> >     s/create/overwrite/
> >     
> >     s/pure clients/HTTP API/
> >     
> >     Can you move this down to #514 where we also overwrite slave id?
> 
> Vinod Kone wrote:
>     actually, a better option is to push this intelligence to the slave much 
> like what we did with the scheduler driver. now that the update.uuid() is 
> being made optional, we can do it!

Chatted offline with vinod, the driver needs the UUID for tracking 
unacknowledged updates, which get re-sent during reconnect.

Executors using the HTTP API will also have to provide a valid UUID for the 
same reason. The validation comment below was to validate executor generated 
UUIDs as RFC-4122 compliant, or which I believe is the case for UUID::random().


- Ben


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35910/#review89573
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 26, 2015, 9:11 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35910/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 26, 2015, 9:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Now that `TaskStatus` includes a 'uuid', the executor driver should set it 
> the same as the `StatusUpdate` 'uuid'.
> 
> For pure clients, we'll have to use and validate the 'uuid' coming from the 
> executor. I've added a TODO for this in a subsequent patch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/exec/exec.cpp 930dda91068dc6ccbab848b5723ce1568f042779 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35910/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to