LGTM modulo below.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/service.go File state/service.go (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/service.go#newcode120 state/service.go:120: return zkRemoveTree(s.st.zk, unit.zkPath()) Not relevant to this CL... but do we actually want to do this? The unit agent will surely still be running; I'm not sure it'll handle this all that well...
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/service.go#newcode228 state/service.go:228: return s.zkPath() + "/config" I strongly approve of all the changes like this one :).
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/topology.go File state/topology.go (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/topology.go#oldcode283 state/topology.go:283: // sequence number will be increased monotonically for each service. Update comment
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/unit.go File state/unit.go (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/unit.go#newcode77 state/unit.go:77: func mkUnitKey(serviceKey string, unitId int) string { What does "mk" signify?
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/diff/7001/state/unit.go#newcode86 state/unit.go:86: return "", fmt.Errorf("invalid unit key %q (1) %s", unitKey, debug.Callers(0, 10)) Is this the proposed implementation or an oversight?
https://codereview.appspot.com/6247066/
« Back to merge proposal
LGTM modulo below.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/service. go
File state/service.go (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/service. go#newcode120 go:120: return zkRemoveTree( s.st.zk, unit.zkPath())
state/service.
Not relevant to this CL... but do we actually want to do this? The unit
agent will surely still be running; I'm not sure it'll handle this all
that well...
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/service. go#newcode228 go:228: return s.zkPath() + "/config"
state/service.
I strongly approve of all the changes like this one :).
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/topology. go
File state/topology.go (left):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/topology. go#oldcode283 go:283: // sequence number will be increased
state/topology.
monotonically for each service.
Update comment
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/unit. go
File state/unit.go (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/unit. go#newcode77 serviceKey string, unitId int) string {
state/unit.go:77: func mkUnitKey(
What does "mk" signify?
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/ diff/7001/ state/unit. go#newcode86
state/unit.go:86: return "", fmt.Errorf("invalid unit key %q (1) %s",
unitKey, debug.Callers(0, 10))
Is this the proposed implementation or an oversight?
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/6247066/