[jira] [Assigned] (MESOS-1188) Rename slaves/frameworks.activated/deactivated

["Benjamin Mahler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ 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)