Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 03:59:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Karthik Kambatla (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12687750.1389132755476.66561.1389239946584@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12687750.1389132755476@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12687750.1389132755476@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-1568) Rename clusterid to clusterId in
 ActiveRMInfoProto
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1568?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13866289#comment-13866289 ] 

Karthik Kambatla commented on YARN-1568:
----------------------------------------

bq. our convention is to mark all fields as optional and handle any 'required' nature in code.
I see. That is why I saw some other protos have optional fields in them even though they were required by the protocols. I am just curious - is there a good reason for adopting this convention? Adding a new proto with required fileds is definitely not incompatible, right? 

> Rename clusterid to clusterId in ActiveRMInfoProto 
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-1568
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1568
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: resourcemanager
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.0
>            Reporter: Karthik Kambatla
>            Assignee: Karthik Kambatla
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 2.4.0
>
>         Attachments: yarn-1568-1.patch, yarn-1568-1.patch
>
>
> YARN-1029 introduces ActiveRMInfoProto - just realized it defines a field clusterid, which is inconsistent with other fields. Better to fix it immediately than leave the inconsistency. 


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)