BZ966777 and interruptible component invocation

Lukas Krejci lkrejci at redhat.com
Tue Jul 2 10:57:25 UTC 2013


IMHO, this looks good.

I only have a question about the DefaultComponentInvocationContext.

I assume that you introduced it to keep the back-compat in the "old" 
ResourceContext constructor that is part of our plugin API.

Would it be possible to not introduce the DefaultComponentInvocationContext 
(and thus not introduce it into our public API) and replace its usage with a 
simple anonymous (or private) impl of the ComponentInvocationContext interface 
in the ResourceContext constructor?

Lukas

On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:28:33 Thomas Segismont wrote:
> Hey Lukas,
> 
> I've just pushed the changes we discussed:
> 
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/rhq/rhq.git/commit/?h=bug/966777&id=8d3cee
> 90914164538471b723b1f344fbaffcfe8c
> 
> Can you please review this new commit?
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> Le 01/07/2013 15:02, Thomas Segismont a écrit :
> > Le 01/07/2013 14:54, Lukas Krejci a écrit :
> >> I agree with what you say, but am not sure if having "one more thing to
> >> remember" to do things is the right thing to do;)  I mean this
> >> ComponentInvocationContext is virtually undiscoverable unless one reads
> >> documentation.
> > 
> > Reading the Javadoc is also the only way to discover that thread will be
> > interrupted if the resource operation times out or gets canceled.
> > 
> > But thanks for pointing that I missed to updated the OperationFacet
> > documentation.
> > 
> >> That said I understand and agree with your reasoning, I'm just not
> >> sure if
> >> "thread interruption gets messed up" is strong enough an argument for
> >> us to
> >> introduce a whole new concept - maybe supporting both standard thread
> >> interruption and this invocation context would be the best thing (or
> >> do we do
> >> that already - haven't checked the code in that much detail)?
> > 
> > Yes the change is backward compatible. We'll interrupt the invocation
> > thread AND change the ComponentInvocationContext status.
> > 
> >> I think that would be the best place for it - a standard location
> >> people are
> >> used to get the "contextual stuff" from.
> > 
> > Ok
> > _______________________________________________
> > rhq-devel mailing list
> > rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list