> On Dec. 24, 2015, 11:10 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > Looks good, but I wonder if we need to go so far as to introduce the `enum
> > Protocol` misnomer in the global IPAddress message now. We could always add
> > it in later, when we actually get NetworkInfo off of it.
>
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> 1. Adam, can you elaborate a bit more on why do you think the `Protocol`
> field is a misnomer here ? Are you alluding for that field to be called
> `version` or something else to suit it better i.e. something like:
>
> ```
> enum Version {
> IPV4 = 1;
> IPV6 = 2;
> }
> ```
>
> 2. Also, we shouldn't worry too much about how the network isolator deals
> with the `Protocol` field being set/unset, since that is relevant business
> logic limited to its functionality and should not influence how the
> representation of `IPAddress` should look like. We should only be concerned
> about wire compatibility if we intend to migrate `NetworkInfo` to use this
> message later. Were you referring to the fact that just renaming `Protocol`
> to `Version` or something else would make it wire incompatible with the old
> message inside `NetworkInfo` and hence we should not do it now ?
>
> PS: I am fine with not introducing the `Protocol` field for now like you
> suggested. I just wanted to be sure about the reasoning/problems with not
> doing it now and leaving it off for later.
Will remove the Protocol field for the time being and set the position
identifier for the ip_address field to 2.
- Avinash
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41380/#review111848
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 23, 2015, 3 a.m., Avinash sridharan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41380/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 23, 2015, 3 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Adam B and Anand Mazumdar.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-4114
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4114
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Added repeated vip field to DiscoveryInfo and an instance_port field to Port
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 2431fdd6b84625c6140a2b3913736bffada4e7f6
> include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 4aed0980b28dc1000aa2821f35303b736bc5bff8
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41380/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check, and make
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Avinash sridharan
>
>
