----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34018/#review84042 -----------------------------------------------------------
Hey Haosdent, These look great. Just 1 suggestion for cleaning up the style while we're touching these lines of code :-) src/log/network.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34018/#comment135174> It looks like we missed a nice example for this in the style guide! (the lambda not being the first function parameter argument). What do you think of re-aligning the code like this: ``` process::collect(futures) .after( Seconds(5), [](process::Future<std::list<Option<std::string>>> datas) { // Handling time outs when collecting membership data. For // now, a timeout is treated as a failure. datas.discard(); return process::Failure("Timed out"); }) .onAny(executor.defer(lambda::bind(&This::collected, this, lambda::_1))); ``` Notice: 1) I put the arguments to `after()` each on their own line, indented 4 spaces deeper. 2) I re-wrapped the comment to the 70 character boundary. 3) I got rid of the white-space between the closing brackets: `> > >` -> `>>>`. Yay newer compilers :-) - Joris Van Remoortere On May 9, 2015, 7:52 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/34018/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 9, 2015, 7:52 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2670 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2670 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > According Joris advice, replace the 'lambda::bind' expressions match these > rules: > > 1. Binds to a static function without any side-effects. > 2. Is self contained (i.e. does not rely on contextual parameters) > 3. Does not bind in any arguments. (i.e. only uses lambda::_N for arguments) > 4. Is only called in 1 place OR is so small that it is ok to repeat the code. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/linux/cgroups.cpp df3211a0c25d7a16f36814886d14f81caaef2b9c > src/log/network.hpp 7c74a55cc2a71fa2acd207605f972e7fbd203be4 > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp > 6a5b2b5c6e2844fe1a10815956569194b6f56681 > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/mem.cpp > 2c218b2b83cf42f54dbc7ec4c2ba8960b6e194de > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp > a4abaff30bb4646b1b1edfdbbc243c9e3f6851df > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp > f2587280dc0e1d566d2b856a80358c7b3896c603 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34018/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > haosdent huang > >
