-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1950/#review2061
-----------------------------------------------------------


Could you explain why we want the retry logic down inside of the 
zookeeper-specific implementation?  It seems to me that having it outside is 
better, since then it doesn't have to be reimplemented in other lock manager 
implementations as they are added.


trunk/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/lockmgr/zookeeper/ZooKeeperHiveLockManager.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/1950/#comment4643>

    quorumServers is not used by this method...why has it been added here?



trunk/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/lockmgr/zookeeper/ZooKeeperHiveLockManager.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/1950/#comment4642>

    But don't we still want to rethrow eventually out of this method?  Here you 
are squelching the exception completely.


- John


On 2011-09-23 21:10:26, Yongqiang He wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/1950/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-09-23 21:10:26)
> 
> 
> Review request for hive and Ning Zhang.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> move lock retry logic into ZooKeeperHiveLockManager
> 
> 
> This addresses bug HIVE-2450.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2450
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   trunk/common/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/conf/HiveConf.java 1171255 
>   trunk/conf/hive-default.xml 1171255 
>   trunk/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/Driver.java 1171255 
>   trunk/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/lockmgr/HiveLockObject.java 
> 1171255 
>   
> trunk/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/lockmgr/zookeeper/ZooKeeperHiveLockManager.java
>  1171255 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1950/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> will run tests locally
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yongqiang
> 
>

Reply via email to