-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#review69514
-----------------------------------------------------------


More thoughts on the protobufs.


include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114218>

    Maybe it would be better to call this BYPASS_CACHE, and then the other two 
could be combined into USE_CACHE. At that point it almost sounds like a 
boolean. Is there a discussion somewhere about what this variable should 
express?



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114217>

    How does this fail for an item not present in the cache? Why wouldn't you 
just want to check for presence in the cache, retrieve if present and 
download&cache if absent?



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114219>

    Why make this required, instead of optional with a default action?



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114220>

    You could probably get away with `cache_filename` instead



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114216>

    Why introduce this in the previous patch if you're just going to 
move/change it in this one? We should either do the protobuf changes in 
backwards-compatible iterations, or all in one patch, once we know the desired 
format.



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114211>

    As mentioned in the previous patch, this must be optional if you're 
updating FetcherInfo compatibly, and it still makes sense optional even in a 
new message for the reason you mention here.



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114213>

    New fields must take new/unused field ids, so this should be `repeated Item 
items = 7;`



include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/#comment114214>

    Where did this go?


- Adam B


On Jan. 22, 2015, 1:07 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2015, 1:07 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Till Toenshoff, and 
> Timothy Chen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2069
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2069
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Extends the fetcher info protobuf with "actions" (fetch directly, through 
> cache, retrieve from cache). Switches the basis for dealing with uris to 
> "items", which contain the uri, the action, and potentially and cache file 
> name. Refactors fetch() and run(), so there is only one of each. Introduces 
> about half of the actual cache logic, including a hashmap of cache file 
> objects for bookkeeping and basic operations on it. 
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/fetcher/fetcher.proto 
> facb87b92bf3194516f636dcc348e136af537721 
>   src/launcher/fetcher.cpp fed0105946da579a38357a30e7ae56e646e05b89 
>   src/slave/containerizer/fetcher.hpp 
> 1db0eaf002c8d0eaf4e0391858e61e0912b35829 
>   src/slave/containerizer/fetcher.cpp 
> d290f95251def3952c5ee34f600e1d71467f6293 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30037/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bernd Mathiske
> 
>

Reply via email to