> On July 2, 2015, 1:35 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/firewall.hpp, line 59 > > > > > > Hm.. why is this an Owned as opposed to just an http::Response? Is there something subtle going on here, or can we just have Option? > > Alexander Rojas wrote: > In order to avoid object slicing in the future. While it is true that all the `http::Response` is a struct and therefore object slicing is not an issue, nothing prevents this from changing in the future which can lead to weird errors. Personally, I prefer to discourage situations in which object slicing is a posibility. Got it, we already have a lot of code relying on `Future`, so I'd suggest keeping it consistent with that and assuming that slicing is not an issue. Otherwise, people browsing the code have a hard time figuring out why things were done inconsistently :( If we introduced some changes that made slicing a problem, we could then do one consistent sweep to capture it. - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35919/#review90183 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 30, 2015, 8:34 a.m., Alexander Rojas wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35919/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 30, 2015, 8:34 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B and Till Toenshoff. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2877 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2877 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > see summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/firewall.hpp f71d6541e48e2481c69f401b388977b153503962 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 52649fb90cdbefb495b68d0beb8c7f7e5ef6888e > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35919/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rojas > >