aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Multiple executor support
Date Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:50:28 GMT
Could you kindly elaborate with an example how the end user can pass in the executor of their
choice in the API . I remember that other than a name passed on the API there was no scope
to pass in the path of the custom executor or things like Fetcher URI sets that can be downloaded
by mesos in the sandbox.
I remember we discussed to make the change like marathon where one can pass in all details
of the executor from client but you had opposed citing security. That should be captured in
the ticket. Hence, the patch was made to load up selected executors from the scheduler side
and depending on the executor name passed in the API the relevant executor configs can be
used and filled in task.

So kind of confused. Examples will help.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Farner <> wrote:
> My change in stance partially came from the realization that the scheduler is not currently
coupled to the executor implementation.  As a result, an API consumer (bypassing the client)
could already use any executor implementation they choose.  This could be interpreted as custom
executor support, and i would like to know if that satisfies the general use case.
> I am slightly uneasy about supporting user-selected executors on the scheduler simply
because of the complexity that comes with it (the configuration complexity is one, but there
will also likely be a need for ACLs, and even greater complexity in the client to support
multiple/arbitrary configuration input formats).
> So, my question becomes - is this (end-user-selected executors) a real use case today,
or a hypothetical one?  If it a real use case, some elaboration would be useful to make sure
we are building the right software for it.
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:30 PM, <> wrote:
>> Bill what do you think?
>> Thx
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Zameer Manji <> wrote:
>> >
>> > +wfarner
>> >
>> > I believe Bill was heavily involved in reviewing the proposed patch and
>> > design. Bill, care to comment on what you think here?
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:55 PM, <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do we have a decision on this?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It would help to know where we stand on this.
>> >>
>> >> Thx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Zameer Manji
>> >>
>> >>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message