[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14068442#comment-14068442
]
nicu marasoiu edited comment on KAFKA-1549 at 7/21/14 6:06 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Implemented point 1 and reverted for point 2, attached patch.
I used implicit parameter for the rwLock, so it required to make the lock the
second argument-list to compile. I think in most cases there will be a single
implicit read write lock reference available.
def inReadLock[T](fun: => T)(lock: ReadWriteLock): T = {..
2. Indeed, to avoid that overhead and make it atomical (i.e. brokers and topic
metadata from the same snapshot of metadata). However the atomicity is not
required by the functionality.
I understand that this locking encapsulation useful to make it safe and easy to
reason on the multithreading behavior, that is the reason right?
was (Author: nmarasoi):
Implemented point 1 and reverted for point 2, attached patch.
I used implicit parameter for the rwLock, so it required to make the lock the
second argument-list to compile. I think in most cases there will be a single
implicit read write lock reference available.
2. Indeed, to avoid that overhead and make it atomical (i.e. brokers and topic
metadata from the same snapshot of metadata). However the atomicity is not
required by the functionality.
I understand that this locking encapsulation useful to make it safe and easy to
reason on the multithreading behavior, that is the reason right?
> dead brokers coming in the TopicMetadataResponse
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-1549
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1549
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.8.2
> Environment: trunk
> Reporter: nicu marasoiu
> Assignee: Jun Rao
> Attachments:
> kafka-1549__only_last_seen_alive_brokers_to_be_responded_part_of_the_topic_metadata_refres.patch
>
>
> JunRao confirming my observation that brokers are only added to the
> metadataCache, never removed: "The way that we update liveBrokers in
> MetadataCache.updateCache() doesn't seem right. We only add newly received
> live brokers to the list. However, there could be existing brokers in that
> list that are now dead. Those dead brokers shouldn't be returned to the
> clients. We should probably just take the new live broker list and cache it."
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
