Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920:

Thanks [~kkaranasos] for review: 
{quote} * The naming external processor is a bit redundant and not very 
descriptive. Let's call it {{PlacementConstraintProcessor}}, since this is what 
it does.{quote}
Updated, and renamed handler to "placement-processor". 
{quote} * Similarly, in the comments of YarnConfiguration, "external which sits 
outside of the scheduler" is not very helpful about why this should be used. 
Let's say "Handle placement constraints by processor that is agnostic of the 
scheduler implementation".{quote}
I just copied contents from markdown file, please let me know if that looks 
better. This should not matter since this field is marked to \{{@Private}}. 
User should get the source of truth from official documentation.
{quote} * Also, shall we call the {{NoneProcessor}} -> {{DefaultProcessor}} or 
something along these lines?{quote}
Would prefer not, the "Default" is not meaningful, would prefer to keep "none" 
since it means "no handler to process the SchedulingRequest". 
{quote} * At some places you use the term "placement requests". Maybe say 
scheduling requests?{quote}

I just updated markdown doc (why it is using a non-standard markdown? Any 
advantage of this format?). 

Made changes to the whole "Enabling placement constraints" section according to 
the code changes. Please very carefully review this change and let me know if 
it looks good.

Since this is blocker of 3.1.0, I would like to get this resolved by Friday. 
[~asuresh]/[~kkaranasos], could you help to review easier if possible?








> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> ---------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-7920
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Wangda Tan
>            Priority: Blocker
>         Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files 
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). 
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in 
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: 
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new 
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable 
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. 
> scheduler. 
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to 
> scheduler without any modifications.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to