I missed the Guava ticket, I'll go have a look at it and link it from
the new issue I had posted.
And yes, it may well be better to just move across. Sounds like a pretty
epic patch though.
A discussion of shutdown semantics in general would be good. The whole
startup/shutdown system is sorely lacking in documenting intended usage
patterns. There should definitely be some kind of method to the madness
as far as components failing to start is concerned.
On 06/06/2012 03:26 PM, Hari Shreedharan wrote:
I believe the long term plan was to move to Guava, as Jarcec pointed out. This
is probably better than trying to fix and improve the current lifecycle
management system. As it is, there are a bunch of issues with our current
system, which have noticed and fixed. I am not quite satisfied with the fixes
we have made though, most are tacky and break-fix.
Also, none of our components really check for interrupts and many(most?) don'g
have clean shutdown semantics. Maybe this should be discussed and we should
come up with a detailed analysis of the situation. I am willing to look at the
migration to Guava if no one else has already looked at it or is looking into
it.
Thanks
Hari
