----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17476/#review33239 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/sequence_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17476/#comment62621> I'm a little confused with the expected use case, why would someone not just use .onAny or .then? In this example they have the foresight to now that they want bar called after foo, which means a .then or .onAny would be equivalent? Is Sequence meant to be kept around, and have things added to it in multiple contexts? - Ben Mahler On Jan. 30, 2014, 6:06 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/17476/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 30, 2014, 6:06 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > One think I haven't done yet is to make it accepts '_Defer' types. (Just > curious why Future.onAny can accept defer without doing something special). > > Also, we can get rid of the SequencerProcess if we use a mutex to protect > 'last'. Not sure which one is better. > > The discard semantics here is a bit tricky. Basically, I wanna support > discarding a single callback without affecting other callbacks. Also, when > the Sequencer object is deleted, I wanna discard all the pending callbacks. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am bbd17cc > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/sequence.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/sequence_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17476/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > repeated 1000 times > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
