> On Aug. 22, 2017, 5:35 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.hpp
> > Lines 854 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61642/diff/1/?file=1797220#file1797220line854>
> >
> >     I think "active" here might be misleading; we don't remove the 
> > framework if tasks/executors have been terminated but acks have not been 
> > received.
> >     
> >     How about:
> >     
> >     // Returns whether the framework all the frameworks's tasks and 
> > executors have completed,
> >     // i.e., terminated and in case of tasks, also received 
> > acknowledgements for all pending updates.
> >     
> >     Still debating whether "idle" is a better word than "empty"

Updated the description:

```
  // Returns whether the framework is idle, where idle is
  // defined as having no activity:
  //   (1) The framework has no non-terminal tasks and executors.
  //   (2) All status updates have been acknowledged.
  bool idle() const;
```


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/61642/#review183492
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 15, 2017, 7 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/61642/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 15, 2017, 7 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This ensures the call-sites consistently check idleness of the
> framework, it also aids readability in that it clarifies that
> we remove idle frameworks.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 0e07a1af733003bb897cbebb7c1f64437063353d 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 50d2a10cd68f6611efd4e691e5325e6e0c06f33a 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61642/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to