-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3704/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for Flume.
Summary
-------
This is an initial go at fixing the threading issues with memory channel.
It uses the preliminary work on FLUME-935 and I have included the code from
that.
The tagging of the events became unnecessary so I dropped that. One thing that
concerns me slightly is how to deal with not having enough space in the queue
to rollback failed takes. One method would be to keep a minimum buffer of
transactionCapacity. Another would be to implement the queue of queues as
suggested in FLUME-889
Anyway, just putting up this early version to see what people think
This addresses bug FLUME-936.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-936
Diffs
-----
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/BasicChannelSemantics.java
PRE-CREATION
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/BasicTransactionSemantics.java
PRE-CREATION
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/ChannelUtils.java
PRE-CREATION
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/MemoryChannel.java
d379b64
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannel.java
b44030e
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannelConcurrency.java
PRE-CREATION
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannelTransaction.java
d18045b
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3704/diff
Testing
-------
The original tests pass, though I had to take out the state checks because of
the changes to semantics from the flume-935 code. I also had to add a
transaction.close statement where semantics were not properly being followed
I have to retrofit my new concurrency test since without the tagged events it
cannot fail without checking that the content is correct. I'll put that up
asap, just wanted to get some eyes on this before I head out.
Thanks,
Juhani
