Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03A8918D7F for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:03:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 63933 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2016 17:03:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 63874 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2016 17:03:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@mesos.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 63864 invoked by uid 99); 17 Mar 2016 17:03:39 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:03:39 +0000 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 0C15B1A0046 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n190so106969092iof.0 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKMfOQUb8x7+de6XB7Q5iULNTiZVp6pq2iYb2lm6vof3HfDbAODetVjl6bPwbNRlUuaT3vprT8HczowMwiv X-Received: by 10.107.47.91 with SMTP id j88mr5502948ioo.168.1458234218561; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.63.205 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:03:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Vinod Kone Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:03:09 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: HTTP API To: user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1857c98d7be052e419c02 --001a11c1857c98d7be052e419c02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the interest! We are actively working to make the Framework v1 API stable. We've made quite a few improvements/fixes to the Scheduler v1 API since 0.24.0. We've also introduced Executor v1 API in 0.28.0. Both are in *experimental* state= . There are still things left to do to make the Framework v1 API production ready. Please refer to MESOS-3302 and MESOS-4855 for specifics. Can you help contributing to any of these? Other than the issues listed above, we like frameworks to start testing this API in their staging/testing clusters. This would give us the most confidence to call it production ready. Can you help? I'm very optimistically hoping to get this ready by MesosCon Denver, but we need more help for it to be a realistic deadline. If any one is willing to help, please reach out to me. I promise to give you my time and shepherd your contributions. Thanks, On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Zameer Manji wrote: > +1 > > I am also interested in knowing the state of the HTTP API. I have heard > that it stabilizing the API might be tied with Mesos 1.0 but I don't have= a > source for that. Can a PMC member comment on what the plan is? > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Dario Rexin wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> since the introduction of the HTTP API in 0.24 around 7.5 months have >> passed. What are the plans to make this API stable? There are already >> features (inverse offers) that are exclusively available through this AP= I, >> so it would be great to have a timeline, as I think for most people it= =E2=80=99s >> impossible to use experimental features in production. >> >> Thanks, >> Dario >> >> -- >> Zameer Manji >> >> --001a11c1857c98d7be052e419c02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the interest!

We are activel= y working to make the Framework v1 API stable. We've made quite a few i= mprovements/fixes to the Scheduler v1 API since 0.24.0. We've also intr= oduced Executor v1 API in 0.28.0. Both are in *experimental* state.

There are still things left to do to make the Framework v= 1 API production ready. Please refer to MESOS-3302=C2=A0and=C2=A0MESOS-4855=C2=A0for specifics.= =C2=A0 Can you help contributing to any of these?

= Other than the issues listed above, we like frameworks to start testing thi= s API in their staging/testing clusters. This would give us the most confid= ence to call it production ready. Can you help?

I&= #39;m very optimistically hoping to get this ready by MesosCon Denver, but = we need more help for it to be a realistic deadline. If any one is willing = to help, please reach out to me. I promise to give you my time and shepherd= your contributions.

Thanks,

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:3= 8 PM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org> wrote:
+1

I am also intere= sted in knowing the state of the HTTP API. I have heard that it stabilizing= the API might be tied with Mesos 1.0 but I don't have a source for tha= t. Can a PMC member comment on what the plan is?

On Mon, M= ar 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Dario Rexin <dario.rexin@me.com> wr= ote:
H= i all,

since the introduction of the HTTP API in 0.24 around 7.5 months have passe= d. What are the plans to make this API stable? There are already features (= inverse offers) that are exclusively available through this API, so it woul= d be great to have a timeline, as I think for most people it=E2=80=99s impo= ssible to use experimental features in production.

Thanks,
Dario

--
Zameer Manji


--001a11c1857c98d7be052e419c02--