> On June 21, 2016, 9:52 p.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/master/http.cpp, line 1462
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48751/diff/3/?file=1427003#file1427003line1462>
> >
> >     Wondering if we should not incur the performance penalty by evolving 
> > the response. We can just have a comment here about the reasoning for not 
> > doing so?
> >     
> >     We already do something similar for `SlaveID` -> `AgentID` evolve for 
> > performance reasons?

We should have a consistent standard everywhere, and apply it in one patch, so 
I don't feel it's this patch's job to solve.


- Zhitao


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/48751/#review138950
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 21, 2016, 9:37 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/48751/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2016, 9:37 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-5489
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5489
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Implement GetState response for master API.
> 
> The response protobuf message and new function `_getState` will be reused for 
> generating snapshot for Subscribe call in next patch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/master/master.proto 639fbd110df4aca1cf700cb9e455eecc110a7f66 
>   include/mesos/v1/master/master.proto 
> c5b57ddc6aca0a62fb28523aee2fa579212da0ed 
>   src/master/http.cpp 0196a79b4941ed6031afee8dfc35e11e23f07244 
>   src/master/master.hpp 2064f849edf6f78b009ecfcc4b15b6831834345c 
>   src/tests/api_tests.cpp 55df322f6a843e52d67bb09d3fe763739515602b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48751/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> New test in MasterAPITest.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Zhitao Li
> 
>

Reply via email to