[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6634?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16021870#comment-16021870
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-6634:
----------------------------------
Thanks [~giovanni.fumarola].
Talked to [~subru] offline, in general the approach looks good to me.
Few thoughts:
1) IIUC, ClientWebServiceProtocol is for RMWebServices, so do you think is it
better to call RMWebServicesProtocol?
2) For REST API compatibility, it is described in
https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/current/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html#REST_APIs.
So instead of marking {{ClientWebServiceProtocol}} to {{public/stable}}, I
suggest to make ClientWebServiceProtocol to be an internal API which will be
shared by RMWebServices implementations.
3) ClientWebServiceProtocolUtil, is it better to rename it to {$class-name,
such as {{RMWebServicesProtocol}}}Constants.
> [API] Define an API for ResourceManager WebServices
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-6634
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6634
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: resourcemanager
> Affects Versions: 2.8.0
> Reporter: Subru Krishnan
> Assignee: Giovanni Matteo Fumarola
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: YARN-6634.proto.patch
>
>
> The RM exposes few REST queries but there's no clear API interface defined.
> This makes it painful to build either clients or extension components like
> Router (YARN-5412) that expose REST interfaces themselves. This jira proposes
> adding a RM WebServices protocol similar to the one we have for RPC, i.e.
> {{ApplicationClientProtocol}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
