-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/47505/#review135385
-----------------------------------------------------------



Not sure if I'm supposed to be reviewing this or 
https://reviews.apache.org/r/47509

Also, if you're changing some fields to optional, won't you have to edit the 
code to check for has_subject, has_object?
>From the JIRA, "This will also require updating local authorizer, which should 
>properly handle the situation when these fields are absent. We may also want 
>to notify authors of external authorizers to update their code accordingly."


include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto (line 28)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/47505/#comment200399>

    I'd rather avoid too many required fields.
    What if we later want to represent subject as an integer, or a more complex 
message/metadata?



include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto (line 38)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/47505/#comment200398>

    Cannot be required due to the latest update, where we now optionally set 
other fields in Object.


- Adam B


On May 17, 2016, 5:35 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/47505/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 17, 2016, 5:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Alexander Rukletsov, Alexander Rojas, and 
> Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-5405
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5405
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Makes `value` required for clearity, to make sure that we do not
> introduce two ways of expressing `ANY`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto 
> 7d4aa32f42de538864508a0ba481d875917d9ab9 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47505/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (OSX)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to