[Bugfix] Multiple service versions in the cluster. #191
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kobolog
pushed a commit
to cocaine/cocaine-plugins
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2015
kobolog
force-pushed
the
kobolog/multiversion-cluster
branch
from
91bcaac to
c1f5682
Compare
kobolog
pushed a commit
to cocaine/cocaine-plugins
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2015
kobolog
force-pushed
the
kobolog/multiversion-cluster
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a5168e1 to
d839919
Compare
kobolog
pushed a commit
to cocaine/cocaine-plugins
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2015
kobolog
force-pushed
the
kobolog/multiversion-cluster
branch
from
d839919 to
aa29b3f
Compare
| @@ -87,8 +87,14 @@ class locator_t::remote_t: | |||
| virtual | |||
| ~remote_t() { | |||
| for(auto it = active.begin(); it != active.end(); ++it) { | |||
| parent->m_gateway->cleanup(uuid, *it); | |||
| if(!parent->m_gateway->cleanup(uuid, *it)) tuple::invoke(*it, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason to use lambdas? I don't think it's much more readable then
if(!parent->m_gateway->cleanup(uuid, *it)) {
//Even with comment about std::get<1>(*it) it's shorted than lambda.
parent->m_protocol[name].erase(std::get<1>(*it));
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's actually parent->m_protocol[std::get<0>(*it)].erase(std::get<1>(*it));, not extremely readable, I must say.
|
LGTM |
kobolog
force-pushed
the
kobolog/multiversion-cluster
branch
from
aa29b3f to
76a9fc8
Compare
kobolog
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2015
[Bugfix] Multiple service versions in the cluster.
kobolog
pushed a commit
to cocaine/cocaine-plugins
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2015
[Bugfix] Compatibility with cocaine/cocaine-core#191.
3Hren
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2017
It was decided that ACL for storage will be stored (packed/unpacked) with integer keys as it was in previous releases, as it is a bunch of ACL in "integer keys" format already in the wild out there.
3Hren
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2017
It was decided that ACL for storage will be stored (packed/unpacked) with integer keys as it was in previous releases, as it is a bunch of ACL in "integer keys" format already in the wild out there.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When there are more than one service version in the cluster, properly partition service metadata by version and resolve only the latest version. We'll add an ability to request specific versions later.