rfc5: update broker module specification #489
Conversation
|
|
| GitHub is NOT the preferred viewer for this file. Please visit | ||
| https://flux-framework.rtfd.io/projects/flux-rfc/en/latest/spec_5.html | ||
| 5/Flux Broker Modules |
spec_5.rst
Outdated
| The colon-separated list of directories that SHOULD be searched for PATH | ||
| if it is not fully-qualified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this section read funny to me, then I figured out what was confusing. Suggestion:
Do flux-module-exec MODULE
(aside, should you mention ARGS too?)
Then
The colon-separated list of directories that SHOULD be searched for MODULE if it not fully qualified
When I read "SHOULD be searched for PATH" for the environment variable "FLUX_MODULE_PATH", I was confused.
| The module name SHALL be registered as a default service provided by the | ||
| module. This means that request messages with topic strings that begin | ||
| with ``NAME.`` are routed to the module for handling. Additional services | ||
| MAY be dynamically registered by the module. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
perhaps add an example, like kvs.lookup and kvs.commit are both routed to the kvs module?
|
|
||
| Module Attributes | ||
|
|
||
| Module Management |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should there be some introductory text in this section? For each RPC?
mildly related, should the registering/unregistering of services in modules be here? Or for another RFC?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think elsewhere since it's not a requirement that the entity registering the service be a module.
|
Thanks, great suggestions. Sorry I think I kind of ran out of gas towards the end there. |
|
|
Problem: RFC 5 is out of date. Make an update pass.
Merge Queue Status✅ The pull request has been merged at cfe43ed This pull request spent 5 seconds in the queue, with no time running CI. Required conditions to merge
|
|
|
2 participants
Problem: RFC 5 is pretty of date at this point.
Make an update pass.