Open mwl opened 8 years ago
I suggest a configuration format where tasks are put into a task field
spring:
application:
name: sample
mesos:
master: leader.mesos:5050
zookeeper:
server: leader.mesos:2181
tasks:
- name: server
command: nc -l ${SERVER_PORT}
docker:
image: alpine
resources:
count: 1
cpus: 0.1
mem: 64
ports:
server-port:
host: ANY
container: 80
- name: slave
command: ./connect server.sample.mesos
docker:
image: alpine
resources:
count: 1
cpus: 0.1
mem: 64
Only new thing is that mesos.*
has been moved into mesos.tasks[n].*
and a mesos.tasks[n].name
has been added.
Another solution is moving mesos.*
properties into mesos.tasks.name.*
Are you going to try and maintain backwards compatibility?
Fine otherwise.
@philwinder When we reach 1.0 I will. Until then we're still in development 🎱
@mwl This is a very useful feature! Can you provide a preliminary implementation code?
@chinaares Thanks for your feedback. Until I've seen otherwise I think it's a bit of an anti-pattern. Maybe you can provide a use case and we can discuss it from there?
@mwl Thank you for your reply . I think this feature enables finer grained resource coordination and management. Otherwise, we can only deploy a large number of framework for specific applications. I have two use case to discuss:
Although mesos can manage all resources, but specific applications are forced to decentralized management by many frameworks, will greatly increase the complexity of maintenance.
@mwl Add a little,Framework should be positioned to address application layer issues. And not every application is simple to just one type task requirement. Scalability at the task layer should greatly enhance the framework's ability to support complex applications.
Any help will be appreciated!
Two main usage patterns has come up to back this feature