----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32585/#review79904 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/master.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32585/#comment129498> Did you look back at https://reviews.apache.org/r/19176/ when doing this? What was the motivation for making this function instead of a field? Either way (1) the 'id' cannot be changed, and (2) there are two ways to access the ID: id() and info.id(). Is there any benefit I'm missing? Just seems like unnecessary churn in the code to me. Note that this change means the `Slave` and `Framework` structs now store their ID's differently as well, which is unfortunate. - Ben Mahler On April 7, 2015, 4:59 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/32585/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 7, 2015, 4:59 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B and Niklas Nielsen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2557 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2557 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Framework.id() extracts and returns FrameworkID from Framework.info. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/http.cpp e1a87d646e9690e39a9e84ae383622018ce80401 > src/master/master.hpp 3c957abcb54a0c23b8549c1d21d2d9277791938d > src/master/master.cpp dccd7c635da4b7031cd109bd84e7f17b31777ef1 > src/master/validation.cpp 2f2e4ea8ea123c5a0d01446cdec8b308ea60932e > src/slave/http.cpp 5f0c39afd2fe9a89eb1df0052af8ab422306f30e > src/slave/slave.hpp 19e6b44bc344c0ca509674803f401cbb4e1f47ae > src/slave/slave.cpp c7e65a6c095963feaa9d5fdbb519c68f8f761d16 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32585/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > TODO: Test for upgrade path. > > > Thanks, > > Kapil Arya > >
