Joris, You make a good point. However, I'm not convinced that `CommandInfo` should be the well defined construct that people use. Can you please describe different custom executors, and the overlap between them and how CommandInfo will reduce that overlap? I'm having a hard time seeing where CommandInfo will solve all of their cases.
Consider the cause of Thermos (Aurora's Executor), it could never use a `CommandInfo` struct because it executes a processes graph instead of a single command. If the project wants to go down this path, I think generalizing `CommandInfo` that could capture more cases (ie multiple commands or a graph of commands) would be a better first step. What do you think? On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Joris Van Remoortere <jo...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > I do think it would be valuable to have a more well defined contract > between frameworks and custom executors. > > As Zameer pointed out a specific framework and accompanying custom executor > can decide to do that in the data bytes; however, if we started building > out a few different flavors of executors then it would be great for there > to be standard way to pass command information to them. > > The current model works well in a 1-1 mapping between framework and > executor binaries. In a world where that is 1-N it means all N executors > have to use the same method of passing the command. > > — > *Joris Van Remoortere* > Mesosphere > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I'm not convinced this is a valid use case. > > > > Mesos is supposed to be a generic kernel for launching "tasks", whatever > > they might be. > > > > In some cases it is useful to launch an executable, in other cases it > might > > be useful to launch a series of executables, and in some other cases it > > might be useful to spawn a thread to do some work. Whatever that might > be, > > it doesn't matter to Mesos and the executor and framework are free to > > establish a contract in `ExecutorInfo.data`, completely independent of > the > > Mesos API. > > > > I think formalizing this contract between executors and frameworks via > > CommandInfo is going to introduce more problems than what they solve. If > > the CommandInfo struct is useful, frameworks and executors can just stuff > > that into ExecutorInfo.data, however it's not something that they need to > > adhere too. > > > > What's the underlying motivation for this? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:40 AM, haosdent <haosd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > For command task, if its `ExecutorInfo` would set with > `CommandExecutor` > > as > > > well? > > > > > > Some tickets may relate to this. > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2330 > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-527 > > > [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5198 > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Vinod Kone <vinodk...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We are contemplating whether to allow both CommandInfo and > ExecutorInfo > > > on > > > > TaskInfo (MESOS-6294 <https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/MESOS-6294 > > > >). > > > > Currently we only allow one or the other. The motivation is to allow > > > custom > > > > executors a more structured way to pass information (e.g, command) > > about > > > > Task. Right now custom executors have to get this data via > > > `TaskInfo.bytes` > > > > which is not ideal. > > > > > > > > Are there any custom executors out there that crash if they get Tasks > > > with > > > > CommandInfo set? > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Vinod > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, > > > Haosdent Huang > > > > > > -- > > > Zameer Manji > > > > > > > -- > Zameer Manji >
