Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(15017)

Issue 5823050: Move GetPingParams() and ParseFinancialPingResponse() to the common code. (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
12 years, 1 month ago by thakis
Modified:
12 years, 1 month ago
CC:
rlz-codereviews_googlegroups.com
Base URL:
http://rlz.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Move GetPingParams() and ParseFinancialPingResponse() to the common code. Committed: https://code.google.com/p/rlz/source/detail?r=76

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 7
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+173 lines, -163 lines) Patch
lib/rlz_lib.h View 1 chunk +56 lines, -0 lines 1 comment Download
lib/rlz_lib2.cc View 2 chunks +115 lines, -0 lines 6 comments Download
win/lib/rlz_lib.h View 2 chunks +0 lines, -51 lines 0 comments Download
win/lib/rlz_lib.cc View 3 chunks +2 lines, -112 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 4
thakis
Straight code move (replacing a windows lock with a ScopedRlzValueStoreLock in one place)
12 years, 1 month ago (2012-03-14 17:29:58 UTC) #1
thakis
Since it's simple, I'll TBR this. Tests pass on windows. Please take a look anyway ...
12 years, 1 month ago (2012-03-14 17:50:03 UTC) #2
Roger Tawa (Google)
https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib.h File lib/rlz_lib.h (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib.h#newcode107 lib/rlz_lib.h:107: const char* response); why is this function declared inside ...
12 years, 1 month ago (2012-03-14 18:20:29 UTC) #3
thakis
12 years, 1 month ago (2012-03-14 18:24:31 UTC) #4
https://codereview.appspot.com/5825051 has the fixes.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib2.cc
File lib/rlz_lib2.cc (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib2.cc#newcode164
lib/rlz_lib2.cc:164: // Keep the lock durin gall GetAccessPointRlz() calls
below.
On 2012/03/14 18:20:29, rogerta wrote:
> typo: durin gall --> during all

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib2.cc#newcode173
lib/rlz_lib2.cc:173: }
On 2012/03/14 18:20:29, rogerta wrote:
> move this if block above the lock variable?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5823050/diff/1/lib/rlz_lib2.cc#newcode181
lib/rlz_lib2.cc:181: // Now add each of the RLZ's.
On 2012/03/14 18:20:29, rogerta wrote:
> what about bringing the lock variable closer to this for loop so that only the
> loop is protected, reducing the scope of the lock?

Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b