aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Using a config file to support custom executors: potential paradigm shift
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:20:00 GMT
Thanks, Renan!  Let's go ahead with the scoped config in your patch.

-=Bill

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Renan DelValle <rdelval1@binghamton.edu>
wrote:

> No problem Bill.
>
> +1 to #1 to avoid yak shaving from me as well.
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
> > +1 to #1 for the short term, but I'd like us to assess #3 in the long
> term.
> >
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I am in favor of #1 to prevent yak shaving.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for starting this discussion, Renan!
> >> >
> >> > I think it's clear that the feature you're adding calls for a
> >> configuration
> >> > file.  I'm realizing now that we do have some precedent for
> configuration
> >> > files with the recently-introduced security controls [1].  In that
> case
> >> the
> >> > sane path was obvious since we pass the configuration file in an
> >> > established format to third-party code (Apache Shiro).
> >> >
> >> > I see several paths ahead:
> >> >
> >> > 1.) start with individual feature-oriented configuration files and
> >> > re-assess down the road
> >> >
> >> > 2.) establish a convention for a single global configuration file
> >> >
> >> > 3.) (2) and migrate command line arguments to a configuration file
> >> >
> >> > My personal preference is (1), so as to not force Renan to start a yak
> >> > shave, and because i think willingness to change things down the road
> is
> >> > important.
> >> >
> >> > I include (3) because people have inquired about that in the past.
> >> >
> >> > Does anyone have a preference which path we take?  Are there other
> >> options
> >> > i'm not thinking about?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/master/docs/security.md#http-spnego-authentication-kerberos
> >> >
> >> > -=Bill
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Renan DelValle <
> rdelval1@binghamton.edu
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm currently working on bringing custom executor support to Aurora
> >> > > (AURORA-1288). As development and discussions about the most
> adequate
> >> > > solution to this problem have moved along, I've reached a crossroad
> >> > > where I need the community's input on the implementation path this
> >> > > feature will take.
> >> > >
> >> > > Right now, after evaluating other options,  it seems that the safest
> >> > > and most flexible way to providing users the ability to configure
> >> > > their own custom executor may be to use a configuration file.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, as there is no previous use of a config file (everything
> has
> >> > > been done through command line up until now), a discussion is
> >> > > necessary about this possible shift in paradigm due to the fact
> that,
> >> > > if this route is taken, it will set a precedent for Aurora.
> >> > >
> >> > > As Bill Farner said in his comment on Jira, all in all, this is
> >> > > discussion should be about how should approach this potential
> paradigm
> >> > > shift.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Renan
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Zameer Manji
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>

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