> On May 12, 2014, 7:35 p.m., Jay Kreps wrote:
> > clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/RecordAccumulator.java,
> >  line 54
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/21304/diff/1/?file=578178#file578178line54>
> >
> >     Does this need to be volatile? Do we actually need it? It is a little 
> > hard to know how to interpret it...

The reason is that otherwise we need to keep the cluster object inside the 
accumulator to complete the ready() call in metrics pull operation.


- Guozhang


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/21304/#review42734
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 10, 2014, 9:38 p.m., Guozhang Wang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/21304/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 10, 2014, 9:38 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for kafka.
> 
> 
> Bugs: KAFKA-1445
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1445
> 
> 
> Repository: kafka
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Mark a partition as ready if some other partitions with the same destination 
> is also ready so it can take a carpool; fix a unchecked or unsafe operations 
> warning
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/RecordAccumulator.java
>  2d7e52d430fa267ee3689a06f8a621ce5dfd1e33 
>   
> clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/Sender.java 
> f0152fabbdd44e9f1a24291e84c17edf8379f4fc 
>   
> clients/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/RecordAccumulatorTest.java
>  f37ab770b1794830154f9908a0156e7e99b4a458 
>   
> clients/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/common/utils/AbstractIteratorTest.java 
> 1df226606fad29da47d81d0b8ff36209c3536c06 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21304/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Guozhang Wang
> 
>

Reply via email to