> On May 30, 2016, 2:04 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto, lines 38-40 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/47876/diff/1/?file=1395246#file1395246line38> > > > > I think we should aim for a more general comment here. Since we are not > > employing the enum trick, it is possible to set multiple fields in this > > proto. I would like this comment to steer away from highliting one > > particular field (`value`).
I was trying for a more general comment here, highlighting the fact that the `Object` will contain "either the `value` string or a combination of other metadata fields" and that we can even have multiple fields set in the proto, e.g. "instead the object will have `executor_info` and `framework_info` set." Do you feel that my changes do not express this strongly enough? What would you suggest? - Adam ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47876/#review135543 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 26, 2016, 1:25 a.m., Adam B wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/47876/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 26, 2016, 1:25 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Joerg Schad and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Updated comments for authorization::Object. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto > 02d1a01d57cf34b38524f4368187878b03343537 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47876/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Adam B > >
