zentol commented on PR #21137:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21137#issuecomment-1301815374
I don't see how this is supposed to be good from a maintenance perspective.
If you look at the code without context you now have 2 arbitrary calls go
through an executor and you make similar decisions as with locking ("what
operations should run in the executor").
The javadocs states that all operations are serialized, yet we need an
executor for certain operations to make things work. That's just an accident
waiting to happen.
Additionally the proposal changes the behavior slightly, since calling
grant/revokeLeadership no longer has an immediate effect (as it now effectively
runs in the background). If this is ok (not sure if it is), then I'd rather see
us pushing more code into the `sequentialOperation` and always running that in
the executor. Then you at least have a consistent behavior.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@flink.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
