incubator-hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Edward J. Yoon (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Resolved: (HAMA-291) bsp.groom.port is unnused and superseeded by bsp.peer.port
Date Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:15:32 GMT


Edward J. Yoon resolved HAMA-291.

         Assignee: Edward J. Yoon
    Fix Version/s: 0.2.0
       Resolution: Fixed

I just committed this, Thanks!

> bsp.groom.port is unnused and superseeded by bsp.peer.port
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HAMA-291
>                 URL:
>             Project: Hama
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Filipe Manana
>            Assignee: Edward J. Yoon
>             Fix For: 0.2.0
>         Attachments: hama-291.patch
> 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
> 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