On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be better served with a boolean. protobuf will keep it
compact.
Sijie Guo
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be better served with a boolean. protobuf will keep it
compact.
Sijie Guo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/#review43940
---
just a ping to @fpj and @Rakesh
- Sijie Guo
On April 24, 2014,
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
Sijie Guo wrote:
ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep
arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the
value of contributing our patches back to the community.
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be better served with a boolean. protobuf will keep it
compact.
Sijie Guo
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
Sijie Guo wrote:
ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep
arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the
value of contributing our patches back to the community.
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
Sijie Guo wrote:
ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep
arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the
value of contributing our patches back to the community.
For
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
Sijie Guo wrote:
ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep
arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the
value of contributing our patches back to the community.
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be better served with a boolean. protobuf will keep it
compact.
Sijie Guo
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 104
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line104
You're sending StatusCode twice, every time. Firstly, shouldn't be an
enum as stated
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/
---
(Updated April 24, 2014, 7:43 a.m.)
Review request for bookkeeper and Ivan
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 80
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line80
This would be better served with a boolean. protobuf will keep it
compact.
Sijie Guo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/#review41281
---
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto
On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line81
ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the
case, that how we
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563033#file563033line33
This should certainly not be an enum. Otherwise we need to bump the
protocol version each
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/#review41130
---
On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote:
bookkeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/client/LedgerChecker.java,
line 131
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/diff/2/?file=563019#file563019line131
This change seems unrelated. I don't mind it going in, but could you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/#review38282
---
Thanks Sijie, its really awsome! I just have few minor comments,
On March 19, 2014, 10:49 a.m., fpj wrote:
This is a great, I just have a few minor points and clarifications below.
Thanks Flavio for reviewing. Will address your comments.
- Sijie
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17895/
---
Review request for bookkeeper and Ivan Kelly.
Bugs: BOOKKEEPER-582
40 matches
Mail list logo
