[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-8967?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16799020#comment-16799020
]
Wilfred Spiegelenburg commented on YARN-8967:
---------------------------------------------
3) I need two pieces back from the child when we have a rule so that is what
was hampering the simple move. I was also hesitant because of the possibility
to add new child nodes, beside the parent rule, specifically for introducing
filters on some of the rules. I think the use of a method for just retrieving
the element is simple enough and does not hamper the changes I have been
looking at.
5) yes they should have been private and final
Updated the patch with the two changes [^YARN-8967.011.patch]
> Change FairScheduler to use PlacementRule interface
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-8967
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-8967
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: capacityscheduler, fairscheduler
> Reporter: Wilfred Spiegelenburg
> Assignee: Wilfred Spiegelenburg
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-8967.001.patch, YARN-8967.002.patch,
> YARN-8967.003.patch, YARN-8967.004.patch, YARN-8967.005.patch,
> YARN-8967.006.patch, YARN-8967.007.patch, YARN-8967.008.patch,
> YARN-8967.009.patch, YARN-8967.010.patch, YARN-8967.011.patch
>
>
> The PlacementRule interface was introduced to be used by all schedulers as
> per YARN-3635. The CapacityScheduler is using it but the FairScheduler is not
> and is using its own rule definition.
> YARN-8948 cleans up the implementation and removes the CS references which
> should allow this change to go through.
> This would be the first step in using one placement rule engine for both
> schedulers.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
