> On Feb. 25, 2014, 11:50 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/master/registrar.cpp, lines 378-381 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18341/diff/1/?file=499800#file499800line378> > > > > This seems to violate the invariant in our previous discussions. The > > user has not requested a discard(), we probably should not discard the > > promise. Instead, we may wanna treat that as a failure: > > > > if (!store.isReady()) { > > operation->fail( > > store.isFailed() ? > > store.failure() : > > "Not expecting discarded future"); > > } else { > > ... > > }
Good point! I'll update this. - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18341/#review35496 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 25, 2014, 11:47 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18341/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 25, 2014, 11:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-764 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-764 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > We previously were setting the Promises in some cases _before_ writing to > storage. While this approach was correct, it requires some time and > explanation to convince oneself of this. > > This is why this patch simplifies the semantics by only setting the Promises > _after_ we've written to storage. > > Also, 'Mutation' has now become 'Operation' to better reflect the fact that > some operations do not mutate state when applied. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/registrar.cpp ee16121035db21d966ee151483dd23cbc4a495c2 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18341/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
