Ok, then I would go for IgniteDataStreamerTimeoutException. — Denis
> On Jul 13, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: > >> Personally, I don’t get why we need to have specific timeout related >> exceptions. My preferences is to stop this practice starting from >> IgniteDataStreamer and create generic TimeoutException that can be used by >> the new features later. >> > > Disagree. We should either fix it everywhere, or remain consistent > everywhere. From the API standpoint, it will be very confusing if we don’t. > > One way to fix it everywhere, and to preserve backward compatibility, we > could have all specific TimeoutExceptions inherit from the generic > TimeoutException and then deprecate them. > > >> >> — >> Denis >> >>> On Jul 12, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> If other Timeout Exceptions are specific, shouldn’t this one be specific >> to >>> data streamer as well, for consistency reasons, e.g. >>> IgniteDataStreamerTimeoutExcepiton? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Vladislav Pyatkov < >> vpyat...@gridgain.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dmitriy, >>>> >>>> I discussed that with Denis and we have decided create new Exception >> type >>>> by some reasons: >>>> 1) The exception need to be unchecked (the behavior means serious >> problem >>>> in grid) hence, TimeoutException will implement IgniteException (as >>>> RintimeException). >>>> >>>> 2) Other timeout exception, which follow the logic, are specific (for >>>> example TransactionTimeoutException). >>>> >>>> So TimeoutException will be RuntimeException, will not be specific for >>>> DataStreamer and can be reuse. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Vlad. >>>>> >>>>> At a high level, the changes look OK. However, I am not sure about >>>>> TimeoutException. Don’t we already have other timeout exceptions in >>>> Ignite? >>>>> Can we reuse them? >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Vladislav Pyatkov < >>>> vpyat...@gridgain.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dmitriy, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added the description of changes in the JIRA ticket. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Vlad, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please list the API changes in the ticket, so others can >>>> review >>>>>>> without digging in code? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Vladislav Pyatkov < >>>>>> vpyat...@gridgain.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have implemented timeout in DataStreamer by issue IGNITE-3055 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3055 >>>>>>> (*IgniteDataStreamer >>>>>>>> can't be timed out*). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That lead the change public API: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Added set and get methods (IgniteDataStreamer.timeout(long) and >>>>>>>> IgniteDataStreamer.timeout()) for establish. Default value is -1, >>>>> means >>>>>>>> unlimited time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Added new TimeoutException (inherited IgniteException). The >>>>>> exception >>>>>>>> will thrown when timeout will be reached (may be take place in >>>>>>>> IgniteDataStreamer.addData, IgniteDataStreamer.close and >>>>>>>> IgniteDataStreamer.flash operations). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dmitry, colleagues, please comment or approve. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
