-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#review103387
-----------------------------------------------------------



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 833)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161442>

    s/Check the realm/Obtain the realms



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 843)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161437>

    s/ream's/realms'



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 844)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161440>

    Please add an s to this var name. list => plural. This will read better in 
the subsequent code. Give it a try!



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 848)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161438>

    Aligning the arguments of the foreach makes it easier to associated them 
with it instead of mistaking the second one for something new:
    
    foreach (const std::unique_ptr<Authenticator>& authenticator,
             authenticators_[realm]) {



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 869)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161441>

    Insert blank line.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 885)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161445>

    Why are we doing this? Why isn't it a failure if there is no success and 
also no challenge? Please comment in the source code on this.
    
    My take is that if these authenticators would have liked to pose a 
challenge, they would already have done so.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 886)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161444>

    s/with those/those with



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (line 2839)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/#comment161446>

    Rather than a conditional expression and a complicated comment, let's break 
this up into clear if-then-else blocks with dedicated local comments.


- Bernd Mathiske


On Oct. 21, 2015, 3:01 a.m., Alexander Rojas wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 21, 2015, 3:01 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Bernd Mathiske, and Till 
> Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3231
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3231
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Introduces the authenticator manager, which is a class which handles the 
> actual authentication procedure during the execution of 
> `ProcessManager::handle()` and it also takes care of the life cycle of 
> instances of http::Authenticator.
> 
> No tests are added at this point since no public API is generated, the goal 
> of this patch is to implement the manager and verify nothing breaks 
> afterwards. Authenticator manager tests proper come in a latter patch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/Makefile.am 
> fcc62e99b92b9d2e7ab344e561a06dd6de1fef7e 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/authenticator.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/event.hpp 
> 16ddbd77afa6efdf6bad201aa497ee102aa863ae 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp 
> 591c1a959057155e1bf0f5bd73352e78d1c15cb3 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> 954d31424bc8f8ecfa78b80513c480f2514ec271 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37999/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rojas
> 
>

Reply via email to