Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
Thanks for the reviews @aljoscha @bowenli86 and @GJL . I addressed all
points and will merge this now.
---
Github user bowenli86 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
I was commenting on the scenario described in `What is the purpose of the
change`. In that case, we want to either fail s2 or remove the lock for s2 as
you did. Since we are required to support par
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
@bowenli86 Can you go into detail what kind of problem you have in mind?
This class does not work like a semaphore, i.e. `acquire` never truly blocks.
It is just incrementing a count and does
Github user bowenli86 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
The implementation of having s2 `acquire()` a lock while s1 still holds
that lock seems problematic to me. Why not making it a `tryAcquire()`, as that
in java semaphore?
---
Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4764
CC @aljoscha
---
