Sergey, Anton, Kirill, I think we have to do not change anything in FH. At least without enough motivation.
Now I see only assumption that it "could be helpful for administration purposes". It isn't enough, I believe. On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:59 PM ткаленко кирилл <tkalkir...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > Hello, Alexey! > > I didn't quite understand about merge. > > If we use StopNodeOrHaltFailureHandler with tryStop=true, then if we don't > stop node by timeout, we will terminate jvm. > > Or do you suggest only stopping the node in StopNodeFailureHandler and > terminate jvm in StopNodeOrHaltFailureHandler? or leave it as it is? > > 02.06.2020, 16:46, "Alexey Goncharuk" <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > >> > How exactly do you want to change the StopNodeFH? > >> I want to stop JVM with KILL_EXIT_CODE and add an option (constructor > >> argument of JVM option) for disabling JVM termination. > > > > When the flag is enabled, the behavior is identical to StopNodeOrHaltFH > > with tryStop=false. In other words, > > StopNodeFH with enabled JVM termination === StopNodeOrHaltFH with > > tryStop=false > > StopNodeFG with disabled JVM termination ~ StopNodeOrHaltFH with > > tryStop=true > > > > Why have two different failure handlers with identical behavior? Perhaps, > > there is confusion and we should consider merging these classes into one?
