> On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote: > > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, line 188 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line188> > > > > Should there be a default behavior (say always override the older > > framework)? > > > > I also wonder if "override_existing_cheduler" will be a bit clearer > > than "force"!
I think it is difficult to suggest a default behavior. It depends on the leader election algorithm and partition semantics that a framework uses. Since it relates to safety I'm a bit reluctant to prescribe a default. Regarding the name, I think people grok 'force' easily because it is a well understood term (esp. in CLIs). > On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote: > > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, lines 288-290 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line288> > > > > Isn't it true that Call::subscribe().framework_info().id() and > > Call.framework_id() won't be set in a given Call message? > > > > AFAICT, we do not check whether these two values are set in a given > > Call message and if set, whether they are equal or not. They could both be conceivably set during the Subscribe call by the scheduler. I'll add the check in scheduler.cpp. > On July 1, 2015, 7:06 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote: > > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, line 292 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/1/?file=996383#file996383line292> > > > > How are we going to allow backwards compatibility. Shouldn't we just > > mark "framework_info" as optional and keep setting it for older Masters? see my comment above about compatibility. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/#review90011 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 1, 2015, 5:23 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 1, 2015, 5:23 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOs-2551 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOs-2551 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Subscribe message includes 'FrameworkInfo' and 'force'. Top level protobuf > has FrameworkID. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto > 249ec532b53fe428b7e66be4ced8223e66535b49 > src/examples/event_call_framework.cpp > 63e42bc83ccc0e4085d7619c478e5b010a49098a > src/master/master.cpp 34ce744f84465ecc9aeecd5fdc3d06047a4b7d92 > src/sched/sched.cpp 7563abb85819b0b2bc9afdfd810b33c923c2522e > src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp f360e4d062488986b14e3d48d140996e8ed9e7d6 > src/tests/scheduler_tests.cpp cbe6c91a1b4f864ceb11cf062da0ada6c9666f9f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36078/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
