----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#review76090 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123587> i wish this move was done in its own review (w/o functional changes), so that we can commit it right away. src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123494> looks like AuthenticatorSessionProcess already has an onDiscard handler that transitions the innermost future to FAILED. Do we still need the onDiscard handler here? src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123495> // The 'error' is set atmost once per os process. src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123589> lets do this lock protection in its own dependent review. src/master/master.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123497> s/authenticator/authenticator./ src/master/master.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123498> Can you comment on what the outer and inner future signifies? src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123499> s/Could not/Failed to/ src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123500> s/Cannot/Failed to/ src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123501> Send a FrameworkError message (instead of AuthenticationError) here to avoid retries? src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123505> s/authenticator/authenticator session/ src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123502> "authenticated successfully" is confusing. do you mean "completed authentication process"? src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123585> Per our offline discussion, I think we can get rid of this promise altogether now. please send a dependent review for that. src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#comment123503> Not yours. but can you s/happen/complete/ - Vinod Kone On March 10, 2015, 7:30 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 10, 2015, 7:30 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Kapil Arya, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2050 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2050 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The initial design and implementation of the authenticator module interface > caused issues and was not optimal for heavy lifting setup of external > dependencies. By introducing a two fold design, this has been decoupled from > the authentication message processing. The new design also gets us back on > track to the goal of makeing SASL a soft dependency of mesos. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/authentication/authenticator.hpp f66217a > src/Makefile.am 3059818 > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp c6f465f > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp PRE-CREATION > src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.hpp b894386 > src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.cpp cf503a2 > src/master/master.hpp 3c957ab > src/master/master.cpp dccd7c6 > src/tests/cram_md5_authentication_tests.cpp 92a89c5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Till Toenshoff > >
