----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37097/#review94161 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37097/#comment148696> What is the rationale behind moving these comments to the header file ? I wasn't able to make it out from r36402, Pardon my ignorance. Having these rules in the cpp file is much more intuitive since it allows you to easily understand the code as each rule is followed by its implementation. Including the rules in the header file is essentially duplicating the RFC. Why do we want to do it ? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/encoder_tests.cpp (line 68) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37097/#comment148695> Can we kill the extra [0] index element we just introduced ? - Anand Mazumdar On Aug. 4, 2015, 10:43 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/37097/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 4, 2015, 10:43 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Currently parsing only compares the begining of the header making 'gzipbug' > match with candidate 'gzip' > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp b8d9300 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp 4dcbd74 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/encoder_tests.cpp 0032137 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37097/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Isabel Jimenez > >
