hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Filipe Manana (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Created: (HAMA-291) bsp.groom.port is unnused and superseeded by bsp.peer.port
Date Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:45:34 GMT
bsp.groom.port is unnused and superseeded by bsp.peer.port

                 Key: HAMA-291
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-291
             Project: Hama
          Issue Type: Bug
            Reporter: Filipe Manana

Most of the code uses the parameter bsp.peer.port to pickup the port for a Groom server.
However we have 2 references to bsp.groom.port:

1)  hama-default.xml
2)  in LocalBSPCluster as "conf.set("bsp.groom.port", "40020");"

The following patch renames those 2 entries to bsp.peer.port.
It also changes the default value for bsp.groom.port to 61000 in order to match the default
for bsp.peer.port (see Constants.java).

However I'm not sure if we shouldn't do it the other way around: renaming bsp.peer.port to
bsp.groom.port. I understand the use of "peer" is related to the BSPPeer class name (and other
parts of the code). However, the shell scripts in bin/ use the naming "groom server" as well
as the wiki/documentation. So maybe it's more appropriate to always refer to groom server
instead of "peer"

Definitely, having 2 different words for the same concept/entity is confusing to users and
new developers.

Edward, what do you think?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message