> On Nov. 5, 2015, 8:24 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, lines 83-88
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38059/diff/13/?file=1116697#file1116697line83>
> >
> >     Why don't you just parse a QuotaInfo object instead of a 
> > form-serialized body (with JSON components)?
> >     
> >     The maintenance endpoints do this for simplicity.
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     Because we didn't want to expose the internal structure (`QuotaInfo`) to 
> the outside world. In the future we may want to allow operators to set quotas 
> for multiple roles in one call, which we can easier do if we do not tie the 
> operator API to `QuotaInfo` protobuf. Does it make sense?
> 
> Joseph Wu wrote:
>     `QuotaInfo` should already be exposed, since it's in the `include` folder.
>     
>     As for setting multiple `QuotaInfo`s in a single call, wouldn't that be 
> simpler to implement via a JSON array?
>     (Maybe you can parse the request body as an array, but reject calls with 
> more than one quota request in the MVP.)

I should have been more precise and should have elaborated more in my first 
reply. 

`QuotaInfo` is "mainly" the storage protobuf. It is indeed in the public 
includes, but the reason for this is that it's part of the allocator interface. 
Also we may want to let frameworks know what the quota of their role is.

We do not aim to document the operator API for quota by exposing `QuotaInfo` to 
them. We also do not intend to make the operator API for quota 1:1 
correspondent to `QuotaInfo` message. Let's think about post MVP: quota may get 
optional chunks, limits; it may be set for a framework. I envision the 
`QuotaInfo` message becomes a complex protobuf (think `Resource`). The API for 
operators should stay simple and flexible, I am reluctant to force operators 
provide a JSON view of `QuotaInfo` any time they want to set or update quota. 
Recalling some of our discussions, we may even have different endpoints for 
setting quota (`/master/quota`, `/master/roles/<role>`)!

Does it make sense?


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38059/#review105296
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 9, 2015, 11:14 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38059/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 9, 2015, 11:14 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske, Joerg Schad, Joris Van Remoortere, 
> and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3073
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3073
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Processing quota request consists of several stages: request validation, 
> sanity check and so on. This patch creates a basic workflow for quota 
> requests, while the stages are implemented in subsequent patches.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/CMakeLists.txt f6ae05d4652df6de98a9e110efed87f7fcbd29f9 
>   src/Makefile.am 6ec0488027d6cfccc63ac3a6a8b0c3d8eb6c3330 
>   src/master/master.hpp ead8520b7108a0f2c3a0bb11ae7b543897d111a2 
>   src/master/quota.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/master/quota.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/master/quota_handler.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38059/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Mac OS X 10.10.4)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to