Sid, I've opened YARN-710 for this, and posted a patch following Bobby's suggestion.
Yes, this ought to be part of the public API. Thanks. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Siddharth Seth <[email protected]>wrote: > I'd agree. Using ProtoBase in application code is not a good idea. > > The MR AM currently uses the string form of the IDs to write to the history > file, and constructs them back from this. This would likely not be > practical for some of the more complicated records like Container. > > I initially thought a serialization/deserialization interface on all > records would be useful (especially in the context of RM state store), but > have since been convinced otherwise - YARN does not need to expose it's > underlying record serialization mechanism to user code - not via the > individual records itself. That said, should YARN be providing a utility > library to help app developers with this functionality. This would end up > becoming part of the public API, along with the data format. What do others > think ? > > Thanks > - Sid > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, 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
