> On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
> > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, line 188
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line188>
> >
> >     Should there be a default behavior (say always override the older 
> > framework)?
> >     
> >     I also wonder if "override_existing_cheduler" will be a bit clearer 
> > than "force"!

I think it is difficult to suggest a default behavior. It depends on the leader 
election algorithm and partition semantics that a framework uses. Since it 
relates to safety I'm a bit reluctant to prescribe a default.

Regarding the name, I think people grok 'force' easily because it is a well 
understood term (esp. in CLIs).


> On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
> > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, lines 288-290
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line288>
> >
> >     Isn't it true that Call::subscribe().framework_info().id() and 
> > Call.framework_id() won't be set in a given Call message? 
> >     
> >     AFAICT, we do not check whether these two values are set in a given 
> > Call message and if set, whether they are equal or not.

They could both be conceivably set during the Subscribe call by the scheduler. 
I'll add the check in scheduler.cpp.


> On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
> > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, line 292
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line292>
> >
> >     How are we going to allow backwards compatibility. Shouldn't we just 
> > mark "framework_info" as optional and keep setting it for older Masters?

see my comment above about compatibility.


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/#review90011
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 1, 2015, 5:23 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 1, 2015, 5:23 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOs-2551
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOs-2551
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Subscribe message includes 'FrameworkInfo' and 'force'. Top level protobuf 
> has FrameworkID.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto 
> 249ec532b53fe428b7e66be4ced8223e66535b49 
>   src/examples/event_call_framework.cpp 
> 63e42bc83ccc0e4085d7619c478e5b010a49098a 
>   src/master/master.cpp 34ce744f84465ecc9aeecd5fdc3d06047a4b7d92 
>   src/sched/sched.cpp 7563abb85819b0b2bc9afdfd810b33c923c2522e 
>   src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp f360e4d062488986b14e3d48d140996e8ed9e7d6 
>   src/tests/scheduler_tests.cpp cbe6c91a1b4f864ceb11cf062da0ada6c9666f9f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to