----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/#review184205 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/java/jni/org_apache_mesos_v1_scheduler_V0Mesos.cpp Lines 360 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/#comment260273> hmm, I think we should only log things that are relevant to the business logic of the adapter itself and different than the already existing logic of the driver it already wraps. In this case, this should already be logged by the v0 driver implementation. Hence, I don't see much utility in double logging it again here? src/java/jni/org_apache_mesos_v1_scheduler_V0Mesos.cpp Lines 408 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/#comment260275> We should certainly log this as this is pertaining to the business logic of the adapter itself. Also mention the reason i.e., we are dropping these pending events due to a master disconnection? src/java/jni/org_apache_mesos_v1_scheduler_V0Mesos.cpp Lines 418 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/#comment260274> Ditto as above. We shouldn't double log here. - Anand Mazumdar On Aug. 30, 2017, 2:14 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 30, 2017, 2:14 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Till Toenshoff, and Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/java/jni/org_apache_mesos_v1_scheduler_V0Mesos.cpp > 1f58fbff4e8414e4d2ae4c8f69b637ee3315e411 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61991/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > None: Not a functional change. > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rukletsov > >
