> On July 20, 2016, 7:06 p.m., Chris Pettitt wrote: > > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/container/event-loop.md, line 43 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/diff/1/?file=1446421#file1446421line43> > > > > s/in the a single thread/in a single thread/. > > > > A few other minor grammatical errors, but this is not the easy way to > > share them. If they're not obvious I can send you back a slightly edited > > version of this paragraph. > > > > --- > > > > Larger comment: as we'd ultimately want to move to a single > > implementation should we not allow process and window to run in parallel > > for the same task even with multiple threads?
Right, actually for any case process and window will not be run in parallel for the same task. I guess I didn't make it clear in the description. Could you please take a look again at the new diff and send me an updated version on the paragraph with the grammatical fixes? Thanks a lot! > On July 20, 2016, 7:06 p.m., Chris Pettitt wrote: > > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/api/overview.md, line 22 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/diff/1/?file=1446420#file1446420line22> > > > > Maybe provide an example of what "synchronous process" means. For > > example, a computation that does not involve remote calls. Added the examples for both sync process and async process. > On July 20, 2016, 7:06 p.m., Chris Pettitt wrote: > > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/container/event-loop.md, line 26 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/diff/1/?file=1446421#file1446421line26> > > > > When would you want to run a synchronous task in parallel? What are the > > rules (e.g. memory visibility) with such a configuration? Added the conditions and rules. Please take a look again. > On July 20, 2016, 7:06 p.m., Chris Pettitt wrote: > > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/container/event-loop.md, line 28 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/diff/1/?file=1446421#file1446421line28> > > > > This doesn't quite sound right. Global state is a problem if there is > > > 1 concurrency (whether running with multiple samza threads or not). For > > example, async tasks may or may not be safe depending on concurrency. We > > also can make stronger guarantees than what is implied by the paragraph > > (e.g. state from process is fully visible to window and commit). True, my doc was overly simplified. I added more details. Please take a look. - Xinyu ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/#review142985 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 27, 2016, 11:05 p.m., Xinyu Liu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 27, 2016, 11:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for samza, Chris Pettitt, Navina Ramesh, and Yi Pan (Data > Infrastructure). > > > Repository: samza > > > Description > ------- > > Update samza web docs with new multithreading api, core and configs. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/api/overview.md > 6712344e84e19883b857e00549db2acb101c7e0e > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/container/event-loop.md > 116238312df7071747cbbc14bc9c46f558755195 > docs/learn/documentation/versioned/jobs/configuration-table.html > 54c52981c3055b398ee60af50eeaf2592ed0e64f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/50174/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Test the web pages locally. > > > Thanks, > > Xinyu Liu > >
