I like os:: a lot. I think the type signature (i.e., taking a pid_t) is sufficient for disambiguation.
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> wrote: > We also have a src/common/process_utils.hpp which contains only > mesos::internal::utils::process::killtree() at the moment. > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Yan Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess os:: is fine, but in a separate file? > > -- > Jiang Yan Xu <[email protected]> @xujyan > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't like process:: because it conflicts with the libprocess namespace as > you mentioned. > > I still like proc:: but clearly BenH doesn't like it. I'm ok with os:: > namespace. > > > @vinodkone > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> > wrote: > Is there any consensus on how to place process utilities in stout? I would > expect this to be in a process:: namespace but of course that is confusing > because we use libprocess, which should perhaps have a libprocess:: namespace > instead.. > > I'll be moving process utilities etc into stout, hopefully with the same > calls for linux and OSX but I'm not yet certain if that is possible. I would > like to place these in a process.hpp file inside a process:: namespace. > > I think these read very nicely: > process::alive(pid_t) > process::children(pid_t) > process::stat(pid_t) > > Thoughts? > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Yan Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > This batch of commits changed the reaper to use "Future" as the notification > mechanism. > > Sequence: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10745/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10747/ > > Best, > Yan > -- > Jiang Yan Xu <[email protected]> @xujyan > > > >
