> On March 20, 2014, 12:27 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > Hey Adam, looks pretty good overall! > > > > I'm wondering if we can make the diff smaller for reviewers as we really > > don't want to make any mistakes in the Master/Slave code. Per my comment > > below, can we preserve the 'FrameworkID' member inside the 'Framework' > > structs? There are also some unrelated style changes in this diff that > > would be great to pull out and depend on in this change for easier reviews, > > but up to you!
Definitely. I got a bit overzealous in my cleanup. Removed the changes that are unnecessary for this review, and I can make further reviews for the rest. Thanks for reviewing! > On March 20, 2014, 12:27 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/master/master.hpp, lines 658-661 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19176/diff/2/?file=529300#file529300line658> > > > > It looks like we could really minimize the number of changes we need to > > make to the Master by keeping the 'id' field for convenient access. Keeping > > your constructor change above as is though. > > > > There are still two ways to get the id with this new code: via 'id()' > > and 'info.id()', so I'm not sure what we're gaining by introducing the id > > accessor? Sure, leaving the 'id' field there, but copying from info.id() in the Framework() constructor. - Adam ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19176/#review37944 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 28, 2014, 2:59 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19176/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 28, 2014, 2:59 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-905 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-905 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Eliminated the Framework.id FrameworkID field in master and slave, and > replaced each with a Framework.id() accessor that references > Framework.FrameworkInfo.id. > Removed redundant FrameworkID parameters when FrameworkInfo parameters also > exist with valid contained FrameworkID. > Some messages (RunTaskMessage, ExecutorRegisteredMessage) will no longer need > the FrameworkID member, but it is 'required' and cannot be easily deprecated. > Due to rolling upgrades, we must (a) continue to set the FrameworkID in the > messages, in case the recipient is on an older version that needs it; and (b) > merge the FrameworkID into the FrameworkInfo.id, in case we are receiving a > message from an older sender. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.hpp 0c7c520 > src/master/master.cpp 6da7766 > src/slave/slave.hpp 01b80df > src/slave/slave.cpp d8d3e0f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19176/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check on ubuntu(Mint14)/gcc4.7.2. > > > Thanks, > > Adam B > >
