mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 53492: Added non-const operator-> to Future.
Date Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:57:24 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/53492/#review155677
-----------------------------------------------------------



I've thought about this before as well, since Future is a shared object, adding a non-const
operator isn't very safe. There can be multiple sites holding this Future and it's not clear
who has the ownership necessary to perform non-const operations. My thinking about this in
the past was that we'd need to introduce an explicit type (e.g. OwnedFuture) in order to enforce
that there is a single owner that can perform non-const operations, move out the underyling
object, etc.

- Benjamin Mahler


On Nov. 4, 2016, 5:30 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/53492/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 4, 2016, 5:30 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, Jie Yu, and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added non-const operator-> to Future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp 175214a9090f8cc8241a81e535c87370102f3011

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53492/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>


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