-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18675/#review36557
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Chatted w/ BenM online. I was confused by the fact that the 
Registrar::recover() was needed irrespective whether MasterInfo was passed 
through or not. I'm fine with this change in that case. Afterthe clean up 
around Option<Owned<Promise<Registry> > > this is much easier to follow.

- Vinod Kone


On March 6, 2014, 8:12 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18675/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 6, 2014, 8:12 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
> -------
> 
> As a safety measure, we would like to force a version change on the Registry 
> as a result of the recovery process. This helps prevent a "rogue" Master 
> (that still believes it is leading) from performing writes to the Registry.
> 
> This change adds a 'Recover' operation which adds the latest MasterInfo to 
> the Registry. Unfortunately, since the Registrar is injected to the Master, I 
> had to add 'MasterInfo' as an argument to the 'recover' function, thus 
> altering the design somewhat.
> 
> The current semantics are that there one must call 'recover' before calling 
> other operations, otherwise these other operations will fail.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/registrar.hpp 20734afc69055197e9ab90d42253c56e4af4b97c 
>   src/master/registrar.cpp 37337c07b24a96e71910b7c83085d159361a1188 
>   src/tests/registrar_tests.cpp 3bf42bd77a10470a2afc6fd8e1da30d6134e792c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18675/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added a small test.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to