Hi, Vinod: Thanks for the quick response. For both approaches, the client creates the scheduler locally, via self-defined call-back functions, and uses the scheduler locally. I'm wondering if this is a fixed pattern?
My boss talks about creating some kind of a "remote" scheduler, interacting with both the master and the client via remove calls. I think it should be started independently, rather than by a client. Is there any existing case for this idea? Thanks Wenzhao On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Vinod Kone <vinodk...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi WenZhao, > > v1 is definitely the recommended way to go if you are building a new > scheduler today. v0 will be deprecated at some point. Since v0 API has been > around much longer than v1, it is not surprising that most online > tutorials/docs reference that. > > Thanks, > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Wenzhao Zhang <wzhan...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > Hi, All: > > I'm developing my own scheduler, but become confused about two different > > approaches. > > > > In "*src/cli/execute.cpp*", it defines its own call-back functions, and > > uses "*src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp*" to interact with the master. I > > think > > this can be named as "*v1*", given the names of the header file and > > namespace. > > > > But in the online official document and many other tutorials, they all > talk > > about "*include/mesos/scheduler.hpp*", which is partially implemented > in " > > *src/sched/sched.cpp*". And I remember someone names this as old-version > or > > "*v0*" (please correct me if I'm wrong). > > > > I'm confused about the two different approaches. > > "v1" only supports "Event", while "v0" supports both "Message" and > "Event". > > "v1" is officially used in the source-code. But almost all online > > tutorials talk about "v0". > > And it seems that the two approaches aren't compatible with each other, > as > > I get a lot compiling errors if I import/use both header filers in a > single > > file. > > > > So, is there some "best practice" suggestion? I suppose one approach will > > gradually become obsolete? > > Which approach should I adopt? > > And I believe the answer can also explain the difference between > > "src/executor" and "src/exec" ? > > > > Thanks very much for your time > > Wenzhao > > >
