-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/25861/#review54462
-----------------------------------------------------------
Have you considered using an accumulator function so that you can avoid passing
iterators around? That way you could just chain futures.
Example:
```
accumulate(list<Option<CommandInfo>>> l, Option<CommandInfo> command)
{
l.push_back(command);
return l;
}
prepare(list<Option<CommandInfo>>> l, isolator, containerId, executorInfo,
directory)
{
return isolator->prepare(containerId, executorInfo, directory)
.then(bind(::accumulate, l, lambda::_1));
}
prepare(...)
{
Future<list<Option<CommandInfo>>> f = list<Option<CommandInfo>>();
foreach (Owned<Isolator> isolator, isolators) {
f = f.then(bind(::prepare, lambda::_1, isolator, containerId, executorInfo,
directory);
}
f.then(_prepare)
}
```
- Ben Mahler
On Sept. 22, 2014, 6:45 p.m., Ian Downes wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/25861/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Sept. 22, 2014, 6:45 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Change from doing in parallel and collect()ing to serial according to the
> vector of isolators (reversed order for cleanup).
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp
> bf246ca649ca4a461cebf1aee6908a2d58eec362
> src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp
> 9d083294caa5c5a47ba3ceaa1b57346144cb795c
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25861/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Downes
>
>
