----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39155/#review104578 -----------------------------------------------------------
Hm.. the summary title of this review was a bit confusing for me, how about something like 'Added a using statement in docker registry client.' (although per my suggestions below a namespace alias might be nicer here). I wasn't able to apply this patch, so I've committed a cleanup of the includes and using statements that captures the intent here, I'll mark this as submitted to make the chain clear. src/slave/containerizer/provisioner/docker/registry_client.cpp (lines 37 - 39) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39155/#comment162811> How about we use namespace aliases for these to be more explicit about what kind of Request, Response, Headers are used here? Seeing http::Headers, http::Request, http::Response in the code below seems a bit clearer to the reader? src/slave/containerizer/provisioner/docker/registry_client.cpp (lines 51 - 52) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39155/#comment162807> Hm.. why did this move? - Ben Mahler On Oct. 14, 2015, 4:05 p.m., Jojy Varghese wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39155/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 14, 2015, 4:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > RegistryClient refactor: removed nested namespace references > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/provisioner/docker/registry_client.cpp > 471783d88b73b62afacac3d7952ebb5d5f442097 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39155/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check. > > > Thanks, > > Jojy Varghese > >
