kfaraz commented on PR #16887: URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/16887#issuecomment-2300514257
Ah, thanks for the clarification, @LakshSingla . Nice of Guice to give clear error messages. > Going ahead with the NoopQueryProcessingPool suggestion along with reverting the latest commit. You are too quick to jump between commits 😛 . There are still other things that can be done, like: a) All the provider methods in `DruidProcessingModule` internally call a corresponding static creator method. `PeonProcessingModule` could use the same methods. Thus no code duplication, no override. OR b) Both `DruidProcessingModule` and `PeonProcessingModule` extend a common base class which has the actual (non-provider) methods. Both the modules could override and annotate the methods appropriately. Although, I think out of these two, option (a) is better. I can't think of other better ways right now, will let you know if something comes to mind. For now, do you think the above suggestion seems viable? -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
