> On April 10, 2014, 2:57 p.m., Jun Rao wrote:
> > core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaApis.scala, lines 62-63
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/20190/diff/1/?file=554248#file554248line62>
> >
> >     Could we make this class private?

Unit tests seems to rely on accessing the cache to verify some behaviors, so I 
thought to leave it open as is.


> On April 10, 2014, 2:57 p.m., Jun Rao wrote:
> > core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaApis.scala, lines 283-284
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/20190/diff/1/?file=554248#file554248line283>
> >
> >     I am not sure that we should just blindly set the controllerEpoch in 
> > ReplicaManager. ReplicaManager is supposed to hold the latest controller 
> > epoch so that it can disregard requests sent from an older controller. So, 
> > we only need to update controllerEpoch if the new value is higher than the 
> > current one. Perhaps we can add a util function in ReplicaManager to do 
> > that.

Talked to Jun and we agree the previous check is sufficient here.


- Timothy


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20190/#review40012
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 10, 2014, 1:48 a.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20190/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 10, 2014, 1:48 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for kafka.
> 
> 
> Bugs: KAFKA-1356
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1356
> 
> 
> Repository: kafka
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Refactor metadata cache code in kafka api and remove lock on ensureTopicExists
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaApis.scala 
> d96229e2d4aa7006b0dbd81055ce5a2459d8758c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20190/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Timothy Chen
> 
>

Reply via email to