-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67155/#review203324
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/grpc.hpp
Line 132 (original), 159 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/67155/#comment285451>

    Do we want to actively disallow passing in lvalue `method`s or is this just 
the implementation we currently need?
    
    In the latter case let's just remove the `&&` so the type of `method` can 
be deduced as either lvalue or rvalue, and then `std::forward` as needed.


- Benjamin Bannier


On May 16, 2018, 9:21 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67155/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 16, 2018, 9:21 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, Jie Yu, and 
> Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8924
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8924
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> To better describe the `GRPC_RPC` macro and to avoid future name
> conflicts, we renamed it to `GRPC_CLIENT_METHOD`. Additionally,
> we adapted the new gRPC asynchronous client API. See:
> https://github.com/grpc/grpc/pull/12269
> 
> We also introduced the `MethodTraits` internal helper to simplify the
> declaration of `Runtime::call`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/grpc.hpp 
> 321a46e19c69eafb24012bcef68bb8b0cc6aa436 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/grpc_tests.cpp 
> 38cd6c61b54518a1019bb11a3551be13026c3f0d 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67155/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check in libprocess
> 
> NOTE: Mesos cannot be built with this patch standalone. The tests are done 
> later in the chain.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chun-Hung Hsiao
> 
>

Reply via email to