----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55321/#review163778 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! Nice to have! I wonder if we still want delay long term: ``` delay(self(), &Self::continuation); // vs after(Seconds(5)) .then(defer(self(), &Self::continuation)) ``` 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/after.hpp (lines 16 - 20) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55321/#comment235279> Looks like you need: <memory> <stout/nothing.hpp> 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/after_tests.cpp (line 34) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55321/#comment235280> How about `Milliseconds(1)` like you did below since there doesn't seem to be any need for a specific duration and we don't want to slow down the test. 1 nanosecond also seems to be sufficient for this test? - Benjamin Mahler On Jan. 8, 2017, 7:49 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55321/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 8, 2017, 7:49 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Introduced process::after. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 5e7fdd06ccbed50f248c81e9df1651a3702e7add > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/Makefile.am > 1d17edd933562849b35740f3935685c8eb154440 > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/after.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/after_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55321/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >