mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anand Mazumdar <mazumdar.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 48008: Added v1 protos for master and agent APIs.
Date Sun, 29 May 2016 19:12:26 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#review135430
-----------------------------------------------------------



Looks very good.

The only small concern being around ordering the call/response type enums/messages for readability.
(See comments later)


include/mesos/master/allocator.proto 
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200445>

    Nit: Can we remove this unrelated `TODO` in a different patch?



include/mesos/v1/agent.proto (line 32)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200439>

    s/needs/requires
    s/call gets/call receives
    
    How about:
    
    ```cpp
    If a call of type `Call::FOO` requires additional parameters, they can be included in
the corresponding `Call::Foo` message. Similarly, if a call receives a synchronous response,
the `Response` message would be of type `Response::FOO`.
    ```
    
    Also for the other occurence in `master.proto`.



include/mesos/v1/agent.proto (lines 37 - 48)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200440>

    For readability, would it be a good idea to have these `Type`'s sorted in alphabetical
order and have `GET_` being grouped with their `SET_` types?
    
    Here is how I imagine them to look with `UNKNOWN` being the first since we can't do anything
about it:
    
    ```
    `GET_FLAGS` = 2;
    `GET_LOGGING_LEVEL` = 3;
    `SET_LOGGING_LEVEL` = 4;
    `GET_METRICS` = 5;
    and so on..
    ```
    
    The same ordering should be done for the corresponding `Call::Foo` messages below. What
do you think?



include/mesos/v1/agent.proto (line 80)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200442>

    s/to all/for all
    
    Also for the occurence in master.proto



include/mesos/v1/agent.proto (lines 85 - 95)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200443>

    Ditto as above?



include/mesos/v1/master.proto (line 59)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200448>

    s/streaming//
    
    hmm.. I find it a bit odd to include the business logic of the application itself when
definind the request/response schema.



include/mesos/v1/master.proto (line 302)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/#comment200444>

    s/Streaming//
    s/to/for
    
    I thought we agreed to having the name as `SUBSCRIBE` instead of `SUBSCRIBE_EVENTS`?
    
    s/SUBSCRIBE_EVENTS/SUBSCRIBE
    
    Missing backticks?


- Anand Mazumdar


On May 29, 2016, 6:56 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 29, 2016, 6:56 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Benjamin Hindman, and Kevin Klues.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2257 and MESOS-2720
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2257
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2720
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Also added common protos to v1/mesos.proto.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/master/allocator.proto 555f51b621b21b87b8db00b9ea62cd911d229504 
>   include/mesos/v1/agent.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   include/mesos/v1/agent.proto PRE-CREATION 
>   include/mesos/v1/master.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   include/mesos/v1/master.proto PRE-CREATION 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto af95b5233158c68db356a4c178d9811cf7bf665d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48008/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message