----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20995/#review42435 -----------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were going to leave the 'deferred' constructor (asynchronous) and provide an overload for a function<double> (synchronous) constructor? With the function<double> constructor, we need to use async() to wrap the function and ensure we don't block MetricsProcess. If we were to expose function<Future<double> as currently done, then it's not possible to tell if the function is actually asynchronous, and we'd have to always wrap it with 'async()' to ensure we don't block, no? For asynchronous functions the unneeded wrapping seems unfortunate. - Ben Mahler On May 2, 2014, 7:52 p.m., Dominic Hamon wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/20995/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 2, 2014, 7:52 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1286 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1286 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > see summary. > > This allows synchronous Gauge methods which reduces potential process queue > pressure. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/metrics/gauge.hpp > af06534622b3f00c1d1dc5c577527375318fd79a > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp > 75f1f0e35fdb1ec707785d1ebb903af99551bdaa > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20995/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Dominic Hamon > >
