> On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp, lines 79-82 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890570#file890570line79> > > > > i wish this move was done in its own review (w/o functional changes), > > so that we can commit it right away.
Fixed that, now we got https://reviews.apache.org/r/31961/ > On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.hpp, line 54 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890572#file890572line54> > > > > lets do this lock protection in its own dependent review. Fixed that, now we got https://reviews.apache.org/r/31960/ > On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/master/master.hpp, lines 668-670 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890574#file890574line668> > > > > Can you comment on what the outer and inner future signifies? We got rid of them :) > On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, lines 3888-3889 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890575#file890575line3888> > > > > Per our offline discussion, I think we can get rid of this promise > > altogether now. please send a dependent review for that. Fixed that, we now got https://reviews.apache.org/r/31957/ > On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, line 3887 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890575#file890575line3887> > > > > "authenticated successfully" is confusing. do you mean "completed > > authentication process"? Fixed by removing out promise/future alltogether. > On March 11, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp, lines 419-421 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/diff/23/?file=890571#file890571line419> > > > > looks like AuthenticatorSessionProcess already has an onDiscard handler > > that transitions the innermost future to FAILED. Do we still need the > > onDiscard handler here? Yeah, I noticed that as well, now that I was re-re-refactoring things :) -- we got confused here, manifested in the previous update to this RR. - Till ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/#review76090 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 12, 2015, 12:32 a.m., Till Toenshoff wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/27760/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 12, 2015, 12:32 a.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/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.hpp c6f465f > src/authentication/cram_md5/authenticator.cpp PRE-CREATION > src/authentication/cram_md5/auxprop.hpp b894386 > 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 > >
