----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65538/#review196945 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/resource_provider/storage/disk_profile.proto Lines 40 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65538/#comment276934> Can we simplify this at all? It sounds like we're aiming for the following use cases: 1) no assignments: profiles apply to all providers 2) 1 or more assignments: each assignment links a provider to set of supported profiles The first case already handled by leaving `resource_provider_assignments` unset. There's no need for special `*` syntax/handling. Let's get rid of support for snowflake names: both provider-identity fields are simply required for all ResourceProviderAssignment objects. Also, please consider renaming `type` as `provider_type` and `name` as `provider_name` for clarity. - James DeFelice On Feb. 6, 2018, 11:36 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/65538/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 6, 2018, 11:36 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, James DeFelice, Jie Yu, and Joseph Wu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8510 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8510 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > A new `assignments` field is added to the `DiskProfileMapping` protobuf > so that the URI disk profile adaptor can be customized to notify each > resource provider a different set of profiles. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/resource_provider/storage/disk_profile.proto > 6cf1f8abcd24e45a292efc95a395f90bb2140da2 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65538/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Chun-Hung Hsiao > >
