> On Sept. 20, 2016, 10:29 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > include/mesos/resources.hpp, lines 273-274 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/diff/2/?file=1504213#file1504213line273> > > > > Does it need to be a Try? i.e., if it's not a disk, it's not a root > > disk, right? We have `validate()` to make sure resources are valid.
If `resource.name() != "disk"`, we can skip this resource altogether. But if this is a `disk` but not a root disk (ie. `resource.has_disk()` is `true`), then we also check for `MOUNT` or `PATH`. So by returning a `Try<bool>`, we are able to decide if we should continue with this resource or not. Ofcourse, we can check for `resource.has_disk()` outside of these functions but adding that check makes this function self-contained. > On Sept. 20, 2016, 10:29 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > include/mesos/resources.hpp, lines 276-278 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/diff/2/?file=1504213#file1504213line276> > > > > Would it be simpler to just have > > > > ``` > > static bool Resources::isMountDisk(const Resource& resource); > > static bool Resources::isPathDisk(const Resource& resource); > > ``` > > > > ? > > > > We have already lost enumerability (or swtichability) given that the > > root disk does not have a type. :) I prefer this way so as to not add functions when we add more disk types, say for block devices. > On Sept. 20, 2016, 10:29 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/common/resources.cpp, line 920 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/diff/2/?file=1504215#file1504215line920> > > > > Not `!resource.has_disk()` but rather `!resource.disk().has_source()` > > right? > > > > See examples below. I think `!resource.has_disk()` is fine. Why should a root disk have `Persistence` and/or `Volume`? `Persistence` is to define characteristics of a persistent volume, where as `Volume` is how the disk resource is mounted in a container. > On Sept. 20, 2016, 10:29 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 924-943 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/diff/2/?file=1504215#file1504215line924> > > > > It seems to be cleaner to implement the following instead: > > > > ``` > > static bool Resources::isMountDisk(const Resource& resource) > > { > > return resource.has_disk() && > > resource.disk().has_source() && > > resource.disk().source().type() == > > Resource::DiskInfo::Source::MOUNT; > > } > > > > static bool Resources::isPathDisk(const Resource& resource) > > { > > return resource.has_disk() && > > resource.disk().has_source() && > > resource.disk().source().type() == > > Resource::DiskInfo::Source::PATH; > > } > > ``` See my response above. I think having a single function to encapsulate all source types is fine. - Anindya ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/#review149739 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 21, 2016, 4:14 a.m., Anindya Sinha wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 21, 2016, 4:14 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6062 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6062 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added helper methods to determine types of disk resources. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/resources.hpp 3ef8cacee529addc745b4aeb6398d7606c61b749 > include/mesos/v1/resources.hpp ef56b4960b103a3efd916fab64796aa334ba44c6 > src/common/resources.cpp 4602bff22ec7ff77f069056085ad92bfa04595f3 > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 3e493007d6d1d8194d07035aaa1cde28dedf2b5a > src/v1/resources.cpp 7c4db44d4c31a8295cc16b0ce1ef5adf314e6ac6 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52002/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Anindya Sinha > >
