-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37655/#review96648
-----------------------------------------------------------



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 101)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37655/#comment152260>

    It might be useful to specify what the epoch is (e.g., 
seconds-since-Unix-epoch).



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 102)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37655/#comment152261>

    BTW, have you considered using a simpler representation, such as just a 
single int64 holding # of nanoseconds (or microseconds) since the Unix epoch? 
Using nanoseconds you'd be able to express ~292 years -- maybe that's not a 
wide enough range?


- Neil Conway


On Aug. 26, 2015, 10:56 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37655/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 26, 2015, 10:56 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Bernd Mathiske, Ben Mahler, Artem 
> Harutyunyan, Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3299
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3299
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Instead of using doubles, seconds and nanoseconds can be represented like
> `struct timespec`, with one field for seconds and one for nanoseconds.
> 
> This will be important if frameworks need to compare times to make decisions 
> (such as for maintenance primitives).
> 
> Note about the naming:
> 
> * Time will conflict with the Time class.
> * Most denominations of time (Seconds, Minutes, Hours, etc) will conflict 
> with Duration.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37655/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to