Re: [proposal] Application tags

[Hitesh Shah]

A key-value approach might be better. From a longer term perspective, key-value 
pairs may be simpler to support search functionality. For example, when faced 
with only a tag approach, users tend to use ":" like values 
( namespacing is one reason for this ) which can then result in substring like 
searches which are harder/costly to support. That said, supporting a key-value 
approach where value can be null would solve the tag use-case too. 

— Hitesh  

> On Sep 13, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Sandesh Hegde  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I am proposing a new attribute “Tags”, on the similar lines as Yarn
> application tags. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1461)
> 
> This is useful in a case where an Admin wants to attach an extra
> information to Apex applications launched by various users/departments in
> the company.
> 
> We can use the existing attribute, “APP_PACKAGE_SOURCE”, which is not used
> by the platform, but the name of that attribute won’t reflect the purpose.
> 
> Even though we say attributes are for the platform use, we need to open
> this for Admins for storing extra information.
> 
> Let me know your thought on this.
> 
> Thanks

Re: [proposal] Application tags

[Sandesh Hegde]

One point to my previous mail, Yarn tags are supported from Hadoop 2.4
release onwards. Apex supports Hadoop 2.2, that is why Yarn feature cannot
be leveraged.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:24 PM Sandesh Hegde 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I am proposing a new attribute “Tags”, on the similar lines as Yarn
> application tags. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1461)
>
> This is useful in a case where an Admin wants to attach an extra
> information to Apex applications launched by various users/departments in
> the company.
>
> We can use the existing attribute, “APP_PACKAGE_SOURCE”, which is not used
> by the platform, but the name of that attribute won’t reflect the purpose.
>
> Even though we say attributes are for the platform use, we need to open
> this for Admins for storing extra information.
>
> Let me know your thought on this.
>
> Thanks
>
>