[GitHub] flink issue #4697: [FLINK-7650] [flip6] Port JobCancellationHandler to new R...

2017-09-27 Thread zentol
Github user zentol commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4697 +1 from my side. ---

[GitHub] flink issue #4697: [FLINK-7650] [flip6] Port JobCancellationHandler to new R...

2017-09-27 Thread tillrohrmann
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4697 Thanks for the review @zentol. I've rebased it and wait for Travis. ---

[GitHub] flink issue #4697: [FLINK-7650] [flip6] Port JobCancellationHandler to new R...

2017-09-27 Thread tillrohrmann
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4697 I guess some of the problems like taking a savepoint could still be served under `/jobs/:jobid/savepoints/:savepointid` because this resource will be removed upon first request anyway.

[GitHub] flink issue #4697: [FLINK-7650] [flip6] Port JobCancellationHandler to new R...

2017-09-27 Thread zentol
Github user zentol commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4697 I see a few problems with separating running jobs. * The monitoring pattern for a job becomes quite weird. While a job is running you ask "/jobs/running/:jobid", until you get a 404 and then

[GitHub] flink issue #4697: [FLINK-7650] [flip6] Port JobCancellationHandler to new R...

2017-09-27 Thread tillrohrmann
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4697 Thanks for the review @bowenli86 and @zentol. I've addressed your PR comments modulo the `DELETE` method. I somehow still think that `DELETE` is the right verb and we maybe should change how we