> On Sept. 12, 2016, 5:57 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 372
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51803/diff/3/?file=1496755#file1496755line372>
> >
> >     In genenal I think we should state "Feature X will be deprecated in 
> > version Y in favor of feature Z" to help folks understand the reasoning. In 
> > this case there happens to be difference of opinions on whether this 
> > feature/field should be deprecated in 2.0 (which we can discuss outside 
> > this review) but could you at least in this review add why this is 
> > deprecated and what do you recommend people to do when it is deprecated?
> 
> haosdent huang wrote:
>     @xujyan, that requires we define the message to support HTTP health check 
> with statues. How about let me rephrase the comment here to describe it is 
> not supported and may be deprecated in Mesos 2.0?
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     I think the following statement is correct for 1.x, right? If so can we 
> use it?
>     
>     ```
>     Expected response statuses. 
>     NOTE: It is up to the custom executor to interpret and act on this field. 
> The default executors don't use this field and setting this field has no 
> effect on them (they interpret 2xx - 3xx as healthy).
>     ```
>     
>     I understand that we are considering changing this but:
>     
>     - If it's unclear what we are going to do about it, is it worth 
> forewarning people about it going away? i.e., are you sure in the new design 
> it's going away?
>     - Do we know if this improvement is scheduled for after 2.0? i.e., not in 
> 1.x?
>     - We already have the TODO above, wouldn't it serve as a reminder that 
> we'll address this instead of a warning (which may unnecessarily freak  
> people out about an improvement that *may* not result in 
> backwards-incompatible API change?

hi, @xujyan As the reason I mentioned in 
http://search-hadoop.com/m/0Vlr6lqzFSo3taf2

>IMO, if we sure a feature would be deprecated in Mesos 2.0, we should
deprecate it immediately although could not give a clear replacement at
that time.
Then users would think that feature is not recommended to use and avoid to
use it.

I drop this. Please reopen it if you think it is still an issue.


- haosdent


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51803/#review148536
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 21, 2016, 6:21 p.m., haosdent huang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/51803/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 21, 2016, 6:21 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Joseph Wu, Silas Snider, and 
> Jiang Yan Xu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6110
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6110
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Ensured `HealthCheck::HTTPCheckInfo` compatible with the old one.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 2209ea2fb0bf39c773d60f8a0eea865320a03bb6 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 00c623450268a990d48b4e119aa9429fabf2f135 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51803/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> haosdent huang
> 
>

Reply via email to