how about sending everybody on vacations for a few days :)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Robert Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > I totally agree. The biggest problem is that some of the data structures > we do not treat as immutable data. This make the port a bit too complex > to use Eclipse or sed to fully accomplish. Also it touches every part of > the code. The up merges were killing me. > > --Bobby > > On 5/21/13 12:07 PM, "Alejandro Abdelnur" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Thanks Bobby. Yep, argh, I was thinking something along those lines (on a > >side note, it is a pity that we hide the PB interfaces/builders). > > > > > >On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Robert Evans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I agree with you, and I started down the path of ripping out that > >> abstraction layer because, at this point, we are only going to support > >>pro > >> to buffers, but it turned out to be too much work to get done before the > >> we wanted to lock down the APIs so I stopped. I would suggest that you > >>do > >> the minimum to keep the abstraction in place, but don't do a lot of work > >> beyond that. Perhaps something similar to the RecordFactory API that > >> would allow you to serialize/deserialize a blob into an instance of a > >> known class. Perhaps you could even extend RecordFactory to look > >> something like > >> > >> public interface RecordFactory { > >> public <T> T newRecordInstance(Class<T> clazz) throws YarnException; > >> > >> public <T> T newRecordInstance(Class<T> clazz, byte[] data) throws > >> YarnException; > >> > >> public <T> byte[] fromRecordInstance(T t) throws YarnException; > >> } > >> > >> --Bobby > >> > >> > >> On 5/21/13 8:54 AM, "Alejandro Abdelnur" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >ping > >> > > >> >Alejandro > >> >(phone typing) > >> > > >> >On May 20, 2013, at 11:04, Alejandro Abdelnur <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > > >> >> [I know it has been discussed before the need (or not) of having the > >> >>current wrappers hiding the protobuf generated classes]. > >> >> > >> >> I order to do things like AMs failover and checkpointing I need to > >> >>serialize app IDs, app attempt IDs, containers and/or IDs, resource > >> >>requests, etc. > >> >> > >> >> This means that the current wrapping hides the PB impl, thus hiding > >>the > >> >>provided ser/deser capabilities. > >> >> > >> >> I could force-cast a record to ProtoBase (which is private) and then > >> >>get the PROTO Message and then do the ser/deser with that. > >> >> > >> >> But this, IMO, is a no no. > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Alejandro > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Alejandro > > -- Alejandro
