> On March 11, 2014, 1:26 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/collect.hpp, lines 43-48
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18311/diff/5/?file=506398#file506398line43>
> >
> >     After the inclusion of Future::after I'm not sure that this will be as 
> > useful since if you've already got a future you'll be able to just do 
> > 'future.after(Seconds(N), ...)' rather than 'await(future, 
> > Seconds(N)).then(...)'. Can you think of another reason why to include this 
> > one? If not, how about we kill it?

Future::after indeed makes that one pretty pointless, I guess. 


- Till


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18311/#review36738
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 11, 2014, 10:35 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18311/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 11, 2014, 10:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Currently the Process::await implementation on list<Future>, by the nature of 
> std::list, expects equally typed futures. This new override implements await 
> for a tuple of futures, hence allows awaiting differently typed futures in a 
> single call.
> 
> There also is a new override that allows await on a single Future, a 
> convenience approach for allowing a Process based await on a single Future 
> without forcing the user to render a list or tuple out of that. 
> 
> A C++11 and a boost-based implementation have been added.
> 
> This patch also includes tests on those new overrides.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/collect.hpp 50546d3 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp e899aed 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18311/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (clang c++11, gcc)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to