> On May 4, 2016, 10:34 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> > src/slave/http.cpp, lines 623-624
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46935/diff/1/?file=1369765#file1369765line623>
> >
> >     How about something like: "The principal should be authorized to query 
> > this endpoint"?
> 
> Neil Conway wrote:
>     +1, although I'd say "The current principal ..."
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     I'm ESL, but for me "current" in this context sounds like a principal 
> which is stored or cached by Mesos, and hence "current" to the context. But 
> we are talking about the principal from the request, which may be observed by 
> Mesos for the first time. Maybe we can find a better word, e.g. provided, 
> specified, or "request principal"?

Using `The principal should be authorized to query this endpoint.` for now.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46935/#review131738
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 9, 2016, 11:04 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46935/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 9, 2016, 11:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Alexander Rojas, and Neil 
> Conway.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/endpoints/slave/monitor/statistics.json.md 
> 89a55add1219278b8a7af050f5a0defb6114e9db 
>   docs/endpoints/slave/monitor/statistics.md 
> 3e9a4d1b9d496e94280fe05788f00e9c8a528bb5 
>   src/slave/http.cpp 9b558862e025c5caa71e05fc5eeba783c0ad6fd5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46935/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (OS X, clang-trunk w/o optimizations)
> 
> I also ran `generate-endpoints` and inspected the generated documentation.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to