----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12018/#review22216 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! I am guessing our use case doesn't ask for a more sophisticated leaky bucket type of rate limiter? 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/limiter.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/12018/#comment45637> Rate is an effectively a class constant too but we prefer to compute it each time instead of storing it if the computation is cheap enough, right? - Jiang Yan Xu On June 21, 2013, 12:26 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/12018/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 21, 2013, 12:26 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Description > ------- > > The old review seems to have disappeared into the ether. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 2819734f9d607ba71af6ab98b0d05bd08f67919e > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/limiter.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp > dfa11df4b5eaa8116d7150feea67bb255d3389de > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12018/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo GLOG_v=1 ./3rdparty/libprocess/tests --gtest_filter="*limiter*" > --verbose --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_break_on_failure > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
