Thanks for the summary, Evelina. I think there are two things under discussion:
1. implementation of IPvXaddress abstraction - my preference, and the implementation Evelina has under review, is a single class that abstracts away the family - others have suggested an abstract 'Address' with inheritance to manage the different families - in general we have used composition in the existing code-base - given how non-extensible the family is, it makes sense to me to continue with composition 2. rename of Node - this has come up before, and always been determined to be unnecessary churn - renaming to Address adds confusion as it is actually an address and a port - 'Endpoint' could be an alternative On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Evelina Dumitrescu < evelina_dumitre...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hey, > > A few weeks ago I proposed an abstraction for the IP address. > There has been a long discussion on how to implement this (eg: what kind > of pattern to use, composition/inheritance). > > Ben Hindman proposed a replacement of the Node class with Address and > moving several network functions to the network namespace, which affects my > implementation[1]. > > Here are my code reviews[2] and the Jira discussion on this issue[3]. > To speed up the review process, we decided to move this discussion of the > dev mailing list so anyone can chime in. > > Thanks, > Evelina > > > [1] > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29538/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29540/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29541/ > > [2] > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29289/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29290/ > > [3] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1919 > > -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
