> On April 18, 2016, 6:47 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 762
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45958/diff/1/?file=1337790#file1337790line762>
> >
> >     How about `optional SharedInfo shared`?
> >     
> >     [shareable](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shareable): 
> > capable of being shared
> >     
> >     The following sentences read pretty clear to me.
> >     - Some resource types in Mesos are shareable.
> >     - Currently only persistent volumes are shareable. (This has nothing to 
> > do with whether `SHARE` operation has been applied, just that this type of 
> > resource can be made shared.)
> >     - The `SHARE` operation makes a nonshared resource **shared**. 
> >     - The `UNSHARE` operation makes **shared** resource nonshared.
> >     - `SharedInfo` is currently empty but in the future we may add policies 
> > around how this resource should be **shared**.
> >     
> >     Plus we can compare this with `shared_ptr` which is semantically very 
> > similar.
> >     
> >     If we agree to this please also change the use of these words elsewhere 
> > appropriately.
> 
> Anindya Sinha wrote:
>     I think ShareInfo seems fine to me. However, I think if there is a strong 
> opinion regarding this, I think Shareable is better simply because it 
> describes the resource (ie. adjective) and is on the same principles as 
> Revocable (as pointed by Guangya Liu).
>     However, I stringly believe ShareInfo should be fine.
> 
> Guangya Liu wrote:
>     In my understaind, I think that this is similar with `RevocableInfo` as 
> following:
>     
>       message RevocableInfo {}
>     
>       // If this is set, the resources are revocable, i.e., any tasks or
>       // executors launched using these resources could get preempted or
>       // throttled at any time. This could be used by frameworks to run
>       // best effort tasks that do not need strict uptime or performance
>       // guarantees. Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation'
>       // cannot be set.
>       optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
>     
>     Agree with Anindya, using the concept of `Shareable` will have same 
> principal with `Revocable`.
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     `shared` and `shareable` are both adjectives, `share` is a verb.
>     
>     `shareable` and `shared` have similar meanings except that former 
> emphasizes on **capability** and the latter on the **state**: operation SHARE 
> marks a resource shared just like RESERVE marks a resource reserved 
> (`Resources::isReserved()`), even though in protobuf it's captured by a noun 
> `reservation`.
>     
>     Besides IMO **shared** describes the **status** better, my concerns is 
> that in the future we'll need APIs for determining if some resources **are 
> capable of being shared** (`Resources::isShareable(...)`) and we lose the 
> word to conveniently describe it if we use it for something else now. (If 
> this was a one off thing we wouldn't even call it shared resources, just 
> shared volumes).
>     
>     My apologies that dicussions around this should have been captured 
> earlier in the design phase but since it's a public API I think we should be 
> more rigorous otherwise it requires deprecation and carefully orchestrated 
> upgrades, etc. to change it in the future.
>     
>     Thoughts?

I am not convinced that `shared` is better than `shareable`. However, I do not 
think that it is a great use of time to discuss this further. So, I shall 
change the protobuf field to `shared`. Sounds ok?


- Anindya


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45958/#review128548
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 29, 2016, 12:15 a.m., Anindya Sinha wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45958/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 29, 2016, 12:15 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Jiang Yan Xu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4892
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4892
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added ShareInfo in Resource protobuf to allow for sharing of resources.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 9a180304996895e2e003085690a7dff9ec561e9c 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 44b4f8a059f9dfdcbf02f0c30c1b859898c2e617 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45958/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tests successful.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anindya Sinha
> 
>

Reply via email to