Hi Robert, I’ve already responded to those concerns <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1904#discussion_r2153824586> on the PR itself, prior to your comment asking for this email thread. Please take a look and feel free to respond either on the PR or this email thread, now that we’ve already gotten it going.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to taking feedback on either of these topics - but reiterating already responded-to threads with no new information/opinions/suggestions does not help drive the discussion forward IMO. Best, Adnan Hemani > On Jun 20, 2025, at 7:29 AM, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > I referenced the concerns that were mentioned on the PR about > * the approach not using a `@Decorator`, mixing concerns. > * exception/failure handling. > > For me, these are important topics that need to be considered in the PR. It > would be good to respect those concerns before we start reviewing this > big-ish change, as there are possibly options to shrink it (immutables as an > option?) and also consider exception/failure handling. > > > On 19.06.25 04:48, Adnan Hemani wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As per the comment on GitHub PR #1904 >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1904&source=gmail-imap&ust=1751034561000000&usg=AOvVaw0kTwOl-IaXvgc8vVItGrHI>, >> I am opening this mailing thread to discuss the PR implementation. This PR >> is only adding instrumentation for additional events in >> `PolarisServiceImpl.java`. There is no additional business logic as part of >> this PR. >> >> There was one noted (and responded) remark about execution flow and one >> remark regarding cosmetic changes to the code, which is awaiting follow up >> by adutra@. >> >> I will let snazy@ take the floor from here as he requested this mail thread >> without being specific on his concerns on the PR comment. >> >> Best, >> Adnan Hemani
