Bill Graham 2010-09-20, 21:58
Eric Yang 2010-09-20, 22:57
Bill Graham 2010-09-21, 00:15
Ariel Rabkin 2010-09-21, 00:32
Eric Yang 2010-09-21, 01:51
-Re: Cluster-specific Adaptors
Jerome Boulon 2010-09-21, 04:52
If I had to implement this, I will add an extra parameter (?extraParams=xyz).
The adaptorImp will be the only one responsible for parsing this adaptor's specific info.
I don't think that we could/should add new complexity in the parsing.
The same think should be done for getCurrentStatus(), a public result, that is the same for all adaptors in order to know if the adaptors is working or not and a private section that will give extra information.
Also, moving to a json input should simplify everything.
On 9/20/10 5:15 PM, "Bill Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to hear Ari's take on this, but this does feel a bit hacky to
me. Plus, it would put the responsibility of parsing tags on each
adaptor impl and would require a refactor of how each one currently
Actually, we might be able to intercept the call to parseArgs in
AbstractAdaptor and pull out the tags if they exist and pass the rest
to the subclass, which would be none the wiser. Not the cleanest, but
at lease not as intrusive on the adaptor implementations.
Ari, also what about the getCurrentStatus() method? I'd think all the
impls would somehow need to incorporate tags into that response as
well, since AFAIR that's what's used to do Adaptor SerDe with the
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> This might be hacky but it should be possible to have adaptor specific
> params to include tags. Ari, what do you think?
> On 9/20/10 2:58 PM, "Bill Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CHUKWA-515 we discussed the possibility being able to add an
> adaptor bound to a given cluster:
> I can actually see this being useful, especially now that it's easier
> to add/remove agents with the Adaptor REST API. Looking into the code
> it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do, but I want to make
> sure I'm not overlooking anything.
> It seems like we could support this with a few small changes:
> - Add the concept of tags to the Adaptor interface.
> - AbstractAdator would support a getTags method which would return the
> union of tags set on the Adaptor and the default tags on the
> - Internal tag implementations on each would change to store tags in
> maps, instead of concat'ed strings. This would allow for a "last in
> wins" type of functionality so tags could be overriden. This assumes
> of course that there should never be more than one of the same tag key
> value, which I _assume_ is the case.
> - The ChunkImpl constructor will call getTags on the agent, instead of
> getDefaultTags the data factory.
> The trickiest part as I see it is figuring out how to change the add
> adaptor string syntax in ChukwaAgetn.processAddCommandE in a way that
> both makes sense and doesn't break things. In it's current form it
> doesn't have room for easy expansion except at the end of the line:
> add [name =] <adaptor_class_name> <datatype> <adaptor specific params>
> <initial offset>
> Any thoughts or suggestions? There's also a potential gotcha with all
> the impls of Adaptor.parseArgs either breaking or needing to
Bill Graham 2010-09-21, 18:17
Ariel Rabkin 2010-09-21, 18:54
Bill Graham 2010-09-21, 19:55