----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29535/#review69308 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29535/#comment113960> My impression is that repair is meant to be used liberally to deal with error recover, and makes the use of futures much easier to read. Under the assumption that errors / exceptions are rare, it seems unfortunate to force this extra callback in the chain even for successful futures. This will degrade performance of healthy systems. Can we refactor this such that the callback is only called when we are actually in a failure scenario? - Joris Van Remoortere On Jan. 21, 2015, 5:47 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29535/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 21, 2015, 5:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Adam B. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp > 0326b23cdd475c6e86b33f9b4c63136fdecab443 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp > 3bbfe0a7a65acb52d139fda81816acf305d891f5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29535/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
