8000 metadata management manually by metacret · Pull Request #171 · Netflix/suro · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

metadata management manually #171

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2015
Merged

metadata management manually #171

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2015

Conversation

metacret
Copy link
Contributor
@metacret metacret commented Jan 2, 2015

No description provided.

@cloudbees-pull-request-builder

suro-pull-requests #141 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ project(':suro-s3') {
compile project(':suro-localfile')

compile 'net.java.dev.jets3t:jets3t:0.9.2'
compile 'com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk:1.4.7'
compile 'com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-s3:1.9.3'

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not sure if this is gonna to be an issue. platform/atlas pulls in the uber jar of aws-java-sdk.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I changed this because atlas plugin was pulling separate sdk.Platform is pulling uber jar but suro-localfile is not included in the platform, so I can control its dependencies on the suro-server side.

metacret added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2015
metadata management manually
@metacret metacret merged commit efad351 into master Jan 6, 2015
@metacret metacret deleted the ISSUE-170 branch January 6, 2015 02:06
metadataFetchedTopicSet.add(message.getRoutingKey());
}
sendMessage(message);
metadataWaitingQueuePolicy.release();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think release() needs to be called at the beginning of the run(). Because when run() is executed, this task is already dequeued from executor's queue, which should allow another task to enqueue immediately.

5DC9
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants
0