----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
