mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Qian Zhang <zhang...@cn.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 44424: Updated http_command_executor.cpp to use v1 API.
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2016 01:49:26 GMT


> On March 8, 2016, 8:08 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/launcher/http_command_executor.cpp, line 120
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44424/diff/2/?file=1282127#file1282127line120>
> >
> >     Let's scope all the functions after this to the `protected` namespace. 
> >     
> >     I know that you had an initial look into the example code that has them in the
`public` namespace. But, most of them are generally meant to be used as simple walkthrough
code-samples.
> 
> Qian Zhang wrote:
>     Can you please elaborate why making those methods (`connected()`, `doReliableRegistration()`,
`disconnected()`, `received()`, etc.) protected? I see command executor have the similar methods
(`registered()`, `reregistered()`, `disconnected()`, `launchTask()`, etc.) as public too.
> 
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
>     The previous `Executor` interface had these methods as pure virtual and one was required
to implement these methods. Hence, the command executor implemented these methods in the `public`
scope.
>     
>     Here, in the new interface we need only the 3 methods `connected(), disconnected(),
received()` i.e. the callback methods to be in the public scope and the rest of the method(s)
like `launch() kill()` etc. can be part of the `protected` namespace.

Agree.


> On March 8, 2016, 8:08 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto, lines 1796-1813
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44424/diff/2/?file=1282126#file1282126line1796>
> >
> >     hmmm .. Did you test if the health check workflow works?
> >     
> >     IIUC, the `mesos-health-check` binary sends a `TaskHealthStatus` message back
to the executor and that message is not of type `v1::TaskHealthStatus`. If we try to deserialize,
it should fail at that point. 
> >     
> >     For now, it seems to me that the best course of action is to preserve/keep using
the unversioned health check binary/message. In future, we might want to either modify the
existing `mesos-health-check` binary to emit `v1::TaskHealthStatus` messages in addition to
the unversioned ones or create a new binary for versioned health checks. I would recommend
filing a JIRA and a TODO in the code mentioning this. Makes sense?
> 
> Qian Zhang wrote:
>     Thanks for the comment! I think `TaskHealthStatus` and `v1:: TaskHealthStatus` have
exactly same fields, so it should be OK to do serialize/deserialize between them, right? Actually
all the Call messages sent by this HTTP command executor are v1, and agent is always trying
to receive non-v1 messages, I see there is no issues between them.
> 
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
>     Looks like there is some confusion here.
>     
>     Regarding your comment:
>     "Actually all the Call messages sent by this HTTP command executor are v1, and agent
is always trying to receive non-v1 messages"
>     
>     This is _not_ how it works. The executor sends the `v1` protobuf and the agent devolves
them to an unversioned one before passing it on to the internal code. https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/master/src/slave/http.cpp#L242
>     
>     Also, I would be _really_ surprised if protobuf's allow you to mix and match between
different messages if the fields are the same. The descriptors for both the messages are still
not the same.
>     
>     Does my original issue make more sense now?

Yeah, I agree with you!
> For now, it seems to me that the best course of action is to preserve/keep using the
unversioned health check binary/message.

I am afraid that we can not keep using the unversioned one in this HTTP command executor,
the reason is, in the unversioned `TaskHealthStatus`, the field `task_id` is of type "mesos::TaskID"
rather than "mesos::v1::TaskID", but the rest of the this HTTP command executor codes use
"mesos::v1::TaskID", so there will be some compilation errors if we use the unversioned one,
like:
`error: no viable conversion from 'const mesos::TaskID' to 'const mesos::v1::TaskID'`

Maybe now we should modify the existing `mesos-health-check` by introducing a new string flag
(e.g., `--executor_version`), its default value is `unversioned`, but this HTTP command executor
will set its value to `v1`, so when `mesos-health-check` is launched, it will know which `TaskHealthStatus`
message should be sent. Please let me know your comment :-)


- Qian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44424/#review122377
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 3, 2016, 8:52 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44424/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 3, 2016, 8:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3558
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3558
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updated http_command_executor.cpp to use v1 API.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 35789e051608ea7f1be3ba5b63eaa1fc4e501c84 
>   src/launcher/http_command_executor.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44424/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Qian Zhang
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message