lhotari commented on code in PR #22221: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22221#discussion_r1565190547
########## pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/mutable/AtomicMutableBoolean.java: ########## Review Comment: Now I noticed the comment about the ledger switch, requiring a new instance. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22221#discussion_r1531504225 . I guess it might not be possible to get rid of `volatile` for the field. However, also in that case, I would recommend using `AtomicBoolean` instead of adding this `AtomicMutableBoolean` class. It seems that a `null` value can be passed when there's no timeout in use? Wasn't the no-timeout case the reason to use MutableBoolean in the first place? -- 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]
