> On July 7, 2015, 3:56 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> > 1. Agree that this is useful as a utility in libprocess. Not much overhead 
> > to move it over right?
> > 2. It feels like something that could be exposed as a function rather than 
> > class, maybe a TODO.

OK I realized that doing the aforementioned refactorings is not as simple as 
moving the file so probably punting it is the right thing to do for now.

1. As a generic utility it's probably giong to be SHA instead SHA512.
2. OK SHA512::hash() is already static but I meant if made more generic like 
SHA(alorightm).hash() then shorthand functions like `sha1()`, `sha512()` is 
easier to use.


- Jiang Yan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34138/#review90791
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 7, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Ian Downes wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34138/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 7, 2015, 12:42 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chi Zhang, Paul Brett, Timothy Chen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> AppC hash computation.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am e7de0f3d1a5efeaef47d5074defe3b40db94f573 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/hash.hpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34138/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Downes
> 
>

Reply via email to