hachikuji commented on code in PR #13490:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13490#discussion_r1192760639
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/PrototypeAsyncConsumer.java:
##########
@@ -96,6 +98,11 @@
private final Metrics metrics;
private final long defaultApiTimeoutMs;
+ private final ConcurrentHashMap.KeySetView<CompletableFuture<?>, Boolean>
activeFutures =
Review Comment:
Is there ever a case where we have multiple futures waited on? In other
words, could this be a simpler type, such as `AtomicReference`?
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/PrototypeAsyncConsumer.java:
##########
@@ -546,6 +619,22 @@ public ConsumerRecords<K, V> poll(long timeout) {
throw new KafkaException("method not implemented");
}
+ private void maybeWakeup() {
+ if (this.closed)
+ throw new IllegalStateException("This consumer has already been
closed.");
+
+ log.debug("Raising WakeupException in response to user wakeup");
Review Comment:
Not sure this is super useful. Maybe we could add the wakeup exception so
that at least we get the stack trace?
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/PrototypeAsyncConsumer.java:
##########
@@ -546,6 +619,22 @@ public ConsumerRecords<K, V> poll(long timeout) {
throw new KafkaException("method not implemented");
}
+ private void maybeWakeup() {
+ if (this.closed)
+ throw new IllegalStateException("This consumer has already been
closed.");
Review Comment:
Original consumer doesn't do this. Is there a good reason to change the
behavior?
--
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: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
