> On Aug. 31, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Chi Zhang wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/store.hpp, lines 76-81
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37929/diff/1/?file=1059937#file1059937line76>
> >
> >     Maybe not yet the guarantee on ordering since we don't support 
> > dependency in images.
> >     
> >     Mainly I think if we don't have to worry about ordering, it is simpler.
> >     
> >     If backends can't get away from that, we should then be more explicit 
> > on what kind of ordering we provie. BFS, first order traversal or sth else?
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     This comment is about what the method SHOULD do. And the TODO below says: 
> OK we are actually not doing it just yet. :)
>     
>     It's important to be clear about what we WILL do in this case because 
> this is the contract between the provisioner and the store. We need to 
> determine right now where the logic should go in order to make sure the 
> interface is future proof.
>     
>     The backend is told about the ordering because it itself doesn't have 
> enough information to otherwise detect it.
>     
>     The ordering is basically "what overwites what in the fact of conflict" 
> so it's not BFS or how we RESOLVE the dependencies.
> 
> Chi Zhang wrote:
>     I guess I wasn't clear if C, B, D, A and C, D, B, A are both acceptable 
> in your example, afte reading the comment?
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     Thanks. You are right I could have been more clear about this. In fact B 
> needs to go before D so I added the following comment: 
>     (B before D in this example is decided by the order in which A specifies 
> its dependencies)

is it true that the order at which A speicifies dependecies matters?


- Chi


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37929/#review97157
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 3, 2015, 12:07 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37929/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 3, 2015, 12:07 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chi Zhang, Jie Yu, and Timothy Chen.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> - i.e., It fetches images transparently when it's not in the local cache.
> - This way, the store doesn't have the sense of "localness" anymore but 
> rather it's an abstraction that provides access to all discoverable images, 
> no matter where they can be found.
> 
> Some context for motivation of this change can be found at: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/store.hpp 
> e48d91be06410bfc028a7b2ed88218e13adbffee 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/store.cpp 
> fbd1c535d398a4d37c30ba23f5408095c7d35b65 
>   src/tests/containerizer/appc_provisioner_tests.cpp 
> 47b66b9c30cefe8f9a8e2c1c1341776c2d235020 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37929/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu
> 
>

Reply via email to