[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Benjamin Mahler reassigned MESOS-1188: -------------------------------------- Assignee: (was: Adam B) Un-assigning since [~alexandra.sava] may be taking this up along with the slave deactivation endpoint. > Rename slaves/frameworks.activated/deactivated > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: MESOS-1188 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1188 > Project: Mesos > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: master > Reporter: Adam B > Priority: Minor > Labels: naming > > The "slaves.deactivated" terminology is confusing because one of these slaves > has actually been removed/shutdown, more like a completed framework, whereas > "deactivating" a framework is analagous to "disconnecting" a slave. > The "frameworks.activated" terminology is also confusing, because a > DeactivateFrameworkMessage does not remove the framework from > frameworks.activated, it just marks framework.active=false and deactivates it > in the allocator. > I can identify the following 3 states for slaves: > A. Connected: Slave exists in slaves.activated, slave.disconnected=false; > disconnects when a checkpointing slave hits exited(). > B. Disconnected: Slave exists in slaves.activated, slave.disconnected=true; > reconnects on reregisterSlave. > C. Shutdown: Slave removed from slaves.activated, pid added to > slaves.deactivated; readded to slaves.activated on registerSlave. > I propose that we rename slaves.activated/deactivated to > slaves.running/shutdown to avoid confusion with the framework.active state > and deactivateFramework message/action. (Or perhaps registered/unregistered? > Or up/down? Or running/removed?) > Here are the (nearly analagous) framework states: > A. Active: Framework exists in frameworks.activated, framework.active=true; > goes inactive on exited(). > B. Inactive: Framework exists in frameworks.activated, > framework.active=false; reactivated on reregister (if before failoverTimeout). > C. Completed: Framework moved to frameworks.completed; never goes back. > I propose that we rename frameworks.activated to frameworks.running (or > registered?), because you shouldn't have an inactive slave in > slaves.activated, but you could in slaves.running. > I accept any/all naming feedback/suggestions. I just think we need to move > away from the ambiguous/overloaded activated/deactivated terms. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252)