RongtongJin commented on code in PR #4834:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/pull/4834#discussion_r948594436
##########
broker/src/main/java/org/apache/rocketmq/broker/failover/EscapeBridge.java:
##########
@@ -63,44 +96,52 @@ public void start() throws Exception {
if (brokerController.getBrokerConfig().isEnableSlaveActingMaster() &&
brokerController.getBrokerConfig().isEnableRemoteEscape()) {
String nameserver = this.brokerController.getNameServerList();
if (nameserver != null && !nameserver.isEmpty()) {
Review Comment:
The nameserver condition no longer seems necessary
##########
broker/src/main/java/org/apache/rocketmq/broker/failover/EscapeBridge.java:
##########
@@ -63,44 +96,52 @@ public void start() throws Exception {
if (brokerController.getBrokerConfig().isEnableSlaveActingMaster() &&
brokerController.getBrokerConfig().isEnableRemoteEscape()) {
String nameserver = this.brokerController.getNameServerList();
if (nameserver != null && !nameserver.isEmpty()) {
- startInnerProducer(nameserver);
- startInnerConsumer(nameserver);
- LOG.info("start inner producer and consumer success.");
+ this.defaultAsyncSenderExecutor = new
ForkJoinPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors(),
+ new
NamedForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory("AsyncEscapeBridgeSender_",
brokerController.getBrokerIdentity()),
+ null,
+ false);
Review Comment:
Why do we need to create a ForkJoinPool? I think to create a common thread
pool, and also do not need to create a NamedForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory util
class
--
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]
