> On Jan. 22, 2015, 11:32 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp, line 298
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30110/diff/4/?file=829591#file829591line298>
> >
> >     I thought the consensus was to have a internal write in 
> > src/slave/state.hpp (not here)?

Yes, the `internal::write` that handles `std::string`, 
`google::protobuf::Message`, `google::protobuf::RepeatedPtrField<T>`, and 
`Resources` exist in  https://reviews.apache.org/r/29918.

This is an attempt to keep the API separate (`os::write` and `protobuf::write`) 
while keeping implementation common since otherwise we'd have duplicate code.
All `write(path, T)` can/should use this function (although this is probably 
not the correct place to put it). Currently I call this function from 
`os::write` and `protobuf::write`. I've kept those separate as we discussed.

I hope this is in line with what we agreed, otherwise I can update again.


- Michael


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30110/#review69299
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 22, 2015, 4:52 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30110/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2015, 4:52 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added support for `RepeatedPtrField` to `::protobuf::write`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp 
> 62e72b4b16d0f08cce305e27aa7539970263c4e7 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp 
> b4f5f172d0ea21fbd56dde1eb43d95f9cddad44b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30110/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Reply via email to