> On Feb. 1, 2016, 8:34 a.m., Jian Qiu wrote: > > src/master/registry.proto, line 58 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/diff/1/?file=1204210#file1204210line58> > > > > Why do we persist these fields instead of the whole frameworkInfo or > > frameworkId only?
The current proposal is only to persist the information which can not be chagned after framework register. Persist other information is usless, and will bring a bad performance due to frequently sync up between the discributed registry log. - Yongqiao ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/#review117192 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 1, 2016, 7:23 a.m., Yongqiao Wang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 1, 2016, 7:23 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Guangya Liu, Klaus Ma, Klaus Ma, Qian > Zhang, Jian Qiu, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1719 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1719 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Add the protobufs in registry to persist some framework informations which do > not allow to change when framework re-register. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/registry.proto 9958f9c2bdb785390fca2f292b65d5a9310434d5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Make && Make check successfully > > > Thanks, > > Yongqiao Wang > >
