arjun4084346 commented on code in PR #3899:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gobblin/pull/3899#discussion_r1544753907
##########
gobblin-service/src/main/java/org/apache/gobblin/service/modules/core/GobblinServiceGuiceModule.java:
##########
@@ -202,21 +203,25 @@ public void configure(Binder binder) {
OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder, DagManagementStateStore.class);
OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder, DagProcFactory.class);
OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder, DagProcessingEngine.class);
+ OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder, DagActionReminderScheduler.class);
if (serviceConfig.isDagProcessingEngineEnabled()) {
- binder.bind(DagManagement.class).to(DagManagementTaskStreamImpl.class);
- binder.bind(DagTaskStream.class).to(DagManagementTaskStreamImpl.class);
-
binder.bind(DagManagementStateStore.class).to(MostlyMySqlDagManagementStateStore.class).in(Singleton.class);
- binder.bind(DagProcFactory.class);
- binder.bind(DagProcessingEngine.class);
-
+ /* Note that two instances of the same class can only be differentiated
with an `annotatedWith` marker provided at
+ binding time (optionally bound classes cannot have names associated with
them). Unlike, the scheduler lease arbiter,
+ the execution lease arbiter is used in single-active or multi-active
execution. */
+ binder.bind(MultiActiveLeaseArbiter.class).
+
annotatedWith(Names.named(ConfigurationKeys.PROCESSING_LEASE_ARBITER_NAME))
+ .toProvider(
+ DagActionProcessingMultiActiveLeaseArbiterFactory.class);
// Multi-active execution is only compatible with dagProcessingEngine
configuration
- OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder,
ReminderSettingDagProcLeaseArbiter.class);
- OptionalBinder.newOptionalBinder(binder,
DagActionReminderScheduler.class);
if (serviceConfig.isMultiActiveExecutionEnabled()) {
-
binder.bind(MultiActiveLeaseArbiter.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(EXECUTOR_LEASE_ARBITER_NAME)).to(MysqlMultiActiveLeaseArbiter.class);
binder.bind(DagActionReminderScheduler.class);
- binder.bind(ReminderSettingDagProcLeaseArbiter.class);
}
+
Review Comment:
*nit
Is there a particular reason for moving the below 5 bindings here?
For readability purpose I was expecting the inner `if` in the end of the
outer `if`
--
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]
