> On Dec. 24, 2014, 9:20 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 257 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/5/?file=799497#file799497line257> > > > > grace_period_seconds? To make the unit explicit > > Is there a default, or does it default to None?
There is a default in slave flags, but I don't think it makes sense to repeat it here. I'll change the name to `grace_period_seconds`. > On Dec. 24, 2014, 9:20 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 276 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/5/?file=799498#file799498line276> > > > > private? I put it into the "pseudo-protected" section, together to other similar methods. In private section we have mostly fields and utility functions. Does it make sense or would you still go for private? > On Dec. 24, 2014, 9:20 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1159-1160 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/5/?file=799499#file799499line1159> > > > > I feel like 'setGracePeriod' is inaccurate if it doesn't always set it > > (when already set). Maybe 'updateGracePeriod' or 'enforceGracePeriod' or > > 'mergeGracePeriod'? You can probably come up with something better. Currently, the function always sets the grace period. However, this may change in the future. I tend to agree and go for `enforceGracePeriod()`. What do you think? > On Dec. 24, 2014, 9:20 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 2669-2676 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/5/?file=799499#file799499line2669> > > > > There should only be one CommandInfo to modify, so you can use a CHECK > > or make this an if/else There is only one place where we enforce this constraint. I do not want to introduce this check in another piece of code, since the behaviour may change. Current grace period update code will handle both situations correctly. > On Dec. 24, 2014, 9:20 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 2661-2664 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/5/?file=799499#file799499line2661> > > > > Why not take `flags` as a parameter too? Then setGracePeriod(task, > > flags) or setGracePeriod(task, grace_period) could be a static method that > > doesn't even need to live on `Slave`. This sounds reasonable. I suggest to introduce `enforceGracePeriod(task, grace_period)` in `common/protobuf_utils.{hpp|cpp}`. Does it make sense? - Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/#review66019 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 23, 2014, 3:25 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 23, 2014, 3:25 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Niklas Nielsen, and Till Toenshoff. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1571 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1571 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > CommandExecutor grace_period field is designed to be used by slave to > propagate the value of the grace period flag further to containerizers and > executors. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 0085aba > src/slave/slave.hpp 70bd8c1 > src/slave/slave.cpp ed63ded > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28063/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check (Mac OS 10.9.4, Ubuntu 14.04) > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rukletsov > >
