Github user liyinan926 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19954
> @liyinan926 the code structure is the main issue, yes, but we can tackle
the code structure more effectively by having a better decomposition of the
review process as well. We have these three distinct components which are
relatively independent. We can therefore separate out the three pieces and
consider the architecture for each of them individually.
I don't think they are independent as architecturally they make sense
together and represent a single concern: enabling use of remote dependencies
through init-containers. Missing any one of the three makes the feature
unusable. I would also argue that it won't necessarily make review easier as
reviewers need to mentally connect them together to make sense of each change
set. If the general conclusion is that we should *first* refactor the code to
achieve a better abstraction instead of getting this feature into 2.3, I can
buy that. But I don't think we should tackle this as three components.
@foxish @felixcheung @vanzin any thoughts?
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
