----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/#review69283 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/#comment113924> This seems like a good use of a typedef / using declaration. Is this something we commonly do? It can make refactoring easier in the future. 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/#comment113922> I think we can get rid of the io.hpp header here right? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/#comment113927> This is another implicit copy that keeps the socket alive. (Same as in a previous review). Can we either make a comment about this or make it more explicit using the Socket*? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/#comment113929> Why the choice of -1 versus the default of the function that reads till EOF? - Joris Van Remoortere On Jan. 2, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 2, 2015, 4:46 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Joris Van Remoortere, and Niklas > Nielsen. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Also updated the implementation of http::get/post to be completely > asynchronous. This refactor was made significantly easier thanks to > the new std::string Socket::recv/send overloads. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/http.hpp > 9cf05acbb724ab9af8010d1788621d37a0e48e86 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp 869b205656fb73edb9f02a1856d10f79ed1349b4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29529/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
