mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jie Yu" <yujie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 37881: Implemented AppcProvisioner.
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:59:17 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#review96903
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/slave/containerizer/provisioner.cpp (line 27)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#comment152581>

    See my comments below. This is no longer needed.



src/slave/containerizer/provisioner.cpp (lines 43 - 46)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#comment152580>

    I would love to get this TODO solved in this patch. It should be pretty straightfoward,
right? Just hard code them. And right now, only Appc is supported.



src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc.cpp (lines 79 - 97)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#comment152598>

    Some high level comments.
    
    I think it will be beneficial if we can move the fetch and discovery logic to the Store.
For the MVP, we don't have to impl. that in the Store.
    
    The Store only has one interface, which is the 'get' method. 'get' takes an Image::Appc
and returns a vector of paths to layers. THis semantics is more natural and easy to understand:
get layers for my image, if some layers are already cached, return them directly, otherwise,
discover it and fetch it.
    
    The job of the provisioner is to get layers from the Store and stack them into a rootfs
using the backend. It also manages the rootfs directories.
    
    To me, this is a more natural split of functionalities among components. In the future,
we can also potentially unify the impl. of the provisioner (i.e., one single provisioner for
both Docker and Appc images). All the image specific details are hiden in the Store interface.
    
    Thoughts?



src/slave/flags.hpp (line 53)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#comment152583>

    See my comments below. Why you still need this flag?



src/slave/flags.cpp (lines 72 - 76)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/#comment152582>

    Why do you still need this flag?


- Jie Yu


On Aug. 28, 2015, 9:04 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 9:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Timothy Chen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2796
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2796
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Implemented AppcProvisioner.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am 7b620ff66856b3f0adac121b3297d55ed71a3d99 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioner.cpp efc7e6996ff6663bebaf61989a7e040bd2ad7a5e 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/paths.hpp 41e3bf79da0854406c488855f953111e67353829

>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/paths.cpp 3113c84b9526dd9e9e89fb9aa4ec75ed66a996c7

>   src/slave/flags.hpp e56738e2dfd6593ef8f093687919da287af78f77 
>   src/slave/flags.cpp b36710d6d7a7250bc071a57310a2d54bfb3bc624 
>   src/tests/containerizer/appc_provisioner_tests.cpp 47b66b9c30cefe8f9a8e2c1c1341776c2d235020

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37881/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> sudo make check.
> 
> More test cases coming.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu
> 
>


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