> On Oct. 11, 2012, 11:06 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > I'm guessing you wanted to remove this for large PATH / PIPE responses? > > > > Any reason not to only apply the timeout to BODY / NONE responses?
This was just a mistake on my part. A higher-level abstraction that a process can extend from (e.g., class SendServiceUnavailableAfterNSecondsProcess) is the better solution. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7537/#review12368 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 11, 2012, 8:56 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7537/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 11, 2012, 8:56 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > Removed timeout on HTTP future responses. > > Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7537 > > > Diffs > ----- > > third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp > e887feb1070cdd03a6d81b8f798145ed8bda7b5c > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7537/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
