zozo123 commented on PR #59153: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/59153#issuecomment-5907876142
@haiyangsun-db This implements the ownership split from your follow-up on #58859: Spark routes from the worker spec’s closed `WorkerCase`, and no user class name is loaded. The PR intentionally keeps remote provisioning out of scope. If the direction looks right, could you open a sibling SPIP sub-task for a generic `ProvisionedWorker` contract covering provisioning, returned connection information, lifecycle/cleanup, reuse, and security scope? That would let future remote runtimes integrate through the worker specification without vendor-specific Spark APIs. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
