Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1153#discussion_r41152286
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/leaderelection/LeaderElectionService.java
---
@@ -67,4 +67,20 @@
* @return true if the associated {@link LeaderContender} is the
leader, otherwise false
*/
boolean hasLeadership();
+
+ /**
+ * [EXPERIMENTAL] Returns <code>true</code> if the {@link
LeaderContender} is leader. A call
+ * to this method might block.
+ *
+ * <p>This forces a synchronous check at the respective state backend.
It is possible
+ * that is does not reflect the current state at the {@link
LeaderContender}, which is notified
+ * asynchronously. Therefore it is possible that {@link
#hasLeadership()} and {@link
+ * #syncHasLeadership()} have different return values.
+ *
+ * @TODO @tillrohrmann Is it OK to collapse this with {@link
#hasLeadership()}?
+ *
+ * @return true if the associated {@link LeaderContender} is the
leader, otherwise false
+ */
+ boolean syncHasLeadership();
--- End diff --
Yes, let's stick to `hasLeadership`. I didn't remove it, because I was
undecided about this point as well.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
