You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to reviews@mesos.apache.org by Joris Van Remoortere <jo...@gmail.com> on 2016/04/05 20:40:26 UTC
Re: Review Request 45491: Refactored subprocess options [1/5].
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#review127172
-----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 80)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190324>
Please don't include random fixes in reviews. It makes the review / history confusing.
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (lines 178 - 216)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190340>
Why the inconsistency between a call operator and a friendship?
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 184)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190325>
backticks around `ChildHook`
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 211)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190327>
Do we use this `operator() ()` style elsewhere?
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 218)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190328>
Why do we need to friend if we've provided a call operator?
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190329>
why did you get rid of this whitespace?
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 54)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190335>
2 new lines between function definitions
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 62)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190337>
Taking the working directory by reference is extremely dangerous here. Why do it? Does the style guide default of `[=]` not work?
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (lines 63 - 64)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190338>
I don't understand how this comment applies to the `chdir` hook?
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 72)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190336>
2 new lines between function definitions
- Joris Van Remoortere
On March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-5070
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5070
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Previously the subprocess interface supported a several options for the
> child process such as setsid. In order to make the interface more
> flexible we refactored such options into a vector of ChildHooks.
> In order not to allow arbitrary code inside a ChildHook it has to be
> constructed via pre-defined factory methods.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/ssl/gtest.hpp 5435ddda1fd7dfcff1a0b28f2abe35feb707ceeb
> 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp 8a3fe5526f480187441a8aee2c72636bec3e2b2d
> 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp bb0fcbcd0dfa455c8700247c5b4ca0473fd163c3
> 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp 727e940f12643974de4ff2734fba431b285b5de3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Tested entire chain see https://reviews.apache.org/r/45495/.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joerg Schad
>
>
Re: Review Request 45491: Refactored subprocess options [1/5].
Posted by Joerg Schad <jo...@mesosphere.io>.
> On April 5, 2016, 6:40 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp, line 219
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/diff/2/?file=1320641#file1320641line219>
> >
> > Do we use this `operator() ()` style elsewhere?
If you mean `operator()()` (vs `operator() ()`) then it is fixed.
Or were you refering to the pattern using `operator()()` in order to expose private functions?
- Joerg
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#review127172
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2016, 4:55 p.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 7, 2016, 4:55 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-5070
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5070
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Previously the subprocess interface supported a several options for the
> child process such as setsid. In order to make the interface more
> flexible we refactored such options into a vector of ChildHooks.
> In order not to allow arbitrary code inside a ChildHook it has to be
> constructed via pre-defined factory methods.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/ssl/gtest.hpp 5435ddda1fd7dfcff1a0b28f2abe35feb707ceeb
> 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp 8a3fe5526f480187441a8aee2c72636bec3e2b2d
> 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp bb0fcbcd0dfa455c8700247c5b4ca0473fd163c3
> 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp 727e940f12643974de4ff2734fba431b285b5de3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Tested entire chain see https://reviews.apache.org/r/45495/.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joerg Schad
>
>