-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-25088][CORE][MESOS][DOCS] Update Rest Server docs & defaults. #22071
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it might be better to place this in the MesosRestServer code, since it's not really about the framework (MesosClusterDispatcher) but the RestServer receiving requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought about this too, and originally wrote it that way ... but then I figured the way it works now, its really the same thing. If I put it in the MesosRestServer, it might seem like you could run the ClusterDispatcher without the RestServer somehow -- but maybe the exception itself is clear enough?
anyway, don't feel particularly strongly either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, my reasoning is that it could be harder for someone looking at the code to figure out why this is not allowed, since we don't really mention about the rest server which is really the one requiring security to be turned off. Another reason it will be beneficial to have the check in the MesosRestServer is that the MesosClusterDispatcher framework could technically be decoupled from the MesosRestServer and allow another way to receive requests, so to increase flexibility and avoid someone forgetting about why we put this here, my suggestion is to move the check closer to where it's being required will help maintain this a bit better.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally the way I read this, I agree with @squito and it should be here. From my understanding from reading the docs on running on mesos, the user doesn't start the rest server, they start the dispatcher. The dispatcher doesn't support any sort of authentication. The fact that it uses the rest server is an implementation detail the user doesn't necessarily care about. If you change the dispatcher to have another way then it should support authentication as well or have this same error. Someone adding another way other then rest server should be made aware of this, so it being here accomplishes that.
Perhaps just adding a comment in the code about the rest server would help to clarify to developers? Or please correct me if my understanding of running the dispatcher is wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note if someone add another way to that supports authentication we just move it at that point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually think that is a reason to keep it here. If somebody adds another way, then this check is still in place for the new way -- unless they consciously think about making it work, and then they'd move the check to a more appropriate spot.
I can add a comment in the code:
// This doesn't support authentication because the RestSubmissionServer doesn't support it.