How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then all the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also survive?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to > > BookKeeper, > > > > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ? > > > > > > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used > by > > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for > > porting them all at once. > > > > > OK it makes sense to me > > For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from > distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and > the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler > In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ? > Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like a > duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor > > see > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff- > 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073 > > What do you think about this case ? > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such > > classes from DistributeLog. > > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I > > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially > now > > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL > > > > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a > > vision/roadmap > > > > Cheers > > Enrico > > >
