> On May 5, 2014, 5:13 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/tests/master_contender_detector_tests.cpp, line 371
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18730/diff/9/?file=572845#file572845line371>
> >
> >     How about explicitly calling out namespace here?

This is defined in zoookeeper.jute.h and is not inside a namespace.


> On May 5, 2014, 5:13 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, line 61
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18730/diff/9/?file=572843#file572843line61>
> >
> >     Any reason not to take the individual ACLs? For example:
> >     
> >     virtual process::Future<bool> authorize(
> >         const ACL::DO_GET_ON& get) = 0;
> >     
> >     virtual process::Future<bool> authorize(
> >         const ACL::DO_PUT_ON& put) = 0;
> >     
> >     The advantage here is that we can check multiple subjects/objects at 
> > the same time.

After paging the stuff back these are my thoughts. I didn't do as you suggested 
for couple of reasons:

--> The semantics of "authorize(ACL)" seems a bit weird. One typically 
authorizes a request against a set of ACLs not an ACL against a set of ACLs. 
For example, I don't think an user of this interface would ask "can you 
authorize ANYONE for GET access to /stats.json".

--> I think what you are looking for is the ability to bulk authorize 
subjects/objects. In the current code base I don't see an use case for it yet. 
If/when the need arises, we can update the methods to take vectors of subjects 
and objects.

Makes sense?


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18730/#review42167
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 1, 2014, 6:58 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18730/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 1, 2014, 6:58 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-911
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-911
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto e48e50aae248bd9d5289dbaa36753be53b2e592a 
>   src/Makefile.am f461a1515e7bafac677f2d0bcdd499f57ba3f029 
>   src/authorizer/authorizer.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/authorization_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/master_contender_detector_tests.cpp 
> 42051bfc7c698e2e80cfe23686ee11ef722b679e 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18730/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to