----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28723/#review65559 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/messages/messages.proto <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28723/#comment108784> What if we call all of these 'resource_transformations'? Does that better capture the fact that each one of these is a dynamic "transformations" that gets applied to the statically configured slave.resources()? It might also make the code a bit clearer, for example in the master: ``` // Compute transformations. CompositeTransformation composite; foreach (const Resource& r, resourceTransformations) { if (r.has_disk()) { composite.add(PersistentDisk(r)); } else if (r.has_dynamic_role()) { composite.add(DynamicReservation(r)); } else { // Error. } } ``` - Ben Mahler On Dec. 4, 2014, 10:56 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28723/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 4, 2014, 10:56 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2100 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2100 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Added protobuf protocol for communicating persisted resources between master > and slave. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/messages/messages.proto 28e593f338a154892b1cdf398710bb44e3f9f119 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28723/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
