> On March 8, 2017, 8:43 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt.cpp
> > Lines 37 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56667/diff/7-8/?file=1658327#file1658327line37>
> >
> >     Should the 3 helpers here be either enclosed in an anonymous namespace 
> > or decorated with `static`?

I haven't found a widely adopted practive in the Mesos source base. I'd 
recommand enclosing the helpers in an anonymous namespace, to better 
distinguish them from static functions that are used as callbacks for C-APIs 
and just go ahead an implement it that way.


- Jan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56667/#review168328
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 9, 2017, 3:47 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/56667/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 9, 2017, 3:47 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rojas and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7001
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7001
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> JSON Web Tokens can be used to create claim-based access tokens and is
> typically used for HTTP authentication.
> This implementation is intended for internal use, e.g. Mesos is supposed
> to only parse tokens that it also created. It doesn't fully comply with
> RFC 7519. Currently the only supported cryptographic algorithm is HMAC
> with SHA-256.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 75386184108214e67a58c328258ec204099d638c 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/jwt.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/jwt_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56667/diff/9/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jan Schlicht
> 
>

Reply via email to