----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31881/#review75947 -----------------------------------------------------------
samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/container/RunLoop.scala <https://reviews.apache.org/r/31881/#comment123276> Thought about this a bit more. Agree this is a bit messy. What do you think about just having two protected methods in RunLoop: addShutdownHook and removeShutdownHook? They can both do the Runtime.whatever invocation. In the unit test, we can just override these two methods. Saves us the null checks, and the params in the constructor. - Chris Riccomini On March 10, 2015, 6:01 p.m., Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/31881/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 10, 2015, 6:01 p.m.) > > > Review request for samza. > > > Bugs: SAMZA-506 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-506 > > > Repository: samza > > > Description > ------- > > Shutdown RunLoop on SIGTERM. > > > Diffs > ----- > > samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/container/RunLoop.scala 499f5c6 > samza-core/src/test/scala/org/apache/samza/container/TestRunLoop.scala > ea48853 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31881/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Passes unit and zopkio tests. > > > Thanks, > > Ewen Cheslack-Postava > >
