dariuszseweryn commented on PR #9995: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/9995#issuecomment-2966500908
> From an implementation point of view, it would be helpful to make use of java.time.Duration in several places, versus the separate TimeUnit and long milliseconds. Changed to used Duration. I'll use it more often going forward. > As far as the Supplier approach for the timestamp, is that necessary? It adds a layer of indirection that makes the implementation more difficult to follow, although I can see where it might be useful only for testing. Yes, it helps for testing, that is the purpose. Public interface is oblivious of the Supplier though. > Regarding testing, is the Noop implementation added to avoid timing issues with the tests? Correct. I have changed to use the standard implementation and call `unblockInfinitely()` on it. > One more high-level question, is there a reason for maintaining both the CountDownLatch and the Timeout Latch, as opposed to just the Timeout Latch? This still seems like some more fundamental that needs to be reconsidered. I wanted to have a separation of concerns, but since I have merged TimeoutActivationLatch into StandardRecordProcessorBlocker I am now using a single latch and change behavior by changing `timeoutBase` parameter. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
