> On July 27, 2015, 11:54 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > Nice work Anand!
> > 
> > I left feedback here, but it is all addressed in the diff I sent you over 
> > email. With the diff applied this patch looks like a shippable step to me. 
> > Note that per the comments, I also fenced off addFramework for http 
> > schedulers (much like you've already done here for failoverFramework). In 
> > both of these, we'll need to set up a readerClosed callback (the equivalent 
> > of link()). I also noticed that we'll need connection equality for this, so 
> > I'll get that added for you to work off of (i.e. Pipe::Writer equality 
> > should be enough).
> > 
> > Can you confirm we have tickets for the following:
> > 
> > * Authenticating the /call endpoint.
> > * Extending the existing framework rate limiting functionality to support 
> > http schedulers.

The Authentication JIRA already exists ( MESOS-2297 ). Would add the rate 
limiting JIRA.


> On July 27, 2015, 11:54 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1653
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/9/?file=1021868#file1021868line1653>
> >
> >     Can this really be a CHECK?
> >     
> >     E.g.
> >     
> >     HTTP framework F is subscribed.
> >     A random 'pid'-based KILL is sent with framework id F.
> >     
> >     It seems that in this case, we should drop because it's not from the 
> > subscribed framework, but we'll instead fail this CHECK?
> >     
> >     How about:
> >     
> >     ```
> >     if (framework.pid != from) {
> >       ...
> >     }
> >     ```
> >     
> >     This will handle pid being None.

Good catch, fixed all the other occurences. My bad.


> On July 27, 2015, 11:54 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1876
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/9/?file=1021868#file1021868line1876>
> >
> >     Any reason you added a TODO in the above send, but not here? Seems we 
> > also have the `Framework*` here. I can imagine adding a CHECK to send to 
> > ensure that it's never called with (re-)registration messages when 
> > http.isSome()? Was this the concern?

The TODO was meant for the send(...) above when we did not have a Framework*.

My bad. Moved the comment to the other send(...)


- Anand


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/#review93165
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 28, 2015, 3:47 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 28, 2015, 3:47 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Isabel Jimenez, Marco 
> Massenzio, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2294
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2294
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This change refactors the framework struct in master to introduce support for
> http frameworks.
> - pid becomes a optional field now in the framework struct.
> - added optional fields for supporting http frameworks to the framework struct
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/http.hpp 765860fa7d0ce354320e9d293d09719be87efca0 
>   src/master/http.cpp 3a1598fad4db03e5f62fd4a6bd26b2bedeee4070 
>   src/master/master.hpp 2c924addfb4c52d3048ee6ded13ce638145cc93f 
>   src/master/master.cpp a8a195df07b5a97fdba7dfc5f312bbfa85a0d510 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check + tests now go in a separate patch now.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anand Mazumdar
> 
>

Reply via email to