codelipenghui commented on code in PR #19844:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19844#discussion_r1140999527
##########
pulsar-metadata/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/metadata/coordination/impl/ResourceLockImpl.java:
##########
@@ -197,76 +197,67 @@ private CompletableFuture<Void>
acquireWithNoRevalidation(T newValue) {
}
synchronized void lockWasInvalidated() {
- if (state != State.Valid) {
- // Ignore notifications while we're releasing the lock ourselves
- return;
- }
-
- log.info("Lock on resource {} was invalidated", path);
- revalidate(value, true, true)
- .thenRun(() -> log.info("Successfully revalidated the lock on
{}", path));
+ log.info("Lock on resource {} was invalidated. state {}", path, state);
+ silentRevalidateOnce();
}
synchronized CompletableFuture<Void> revalidateIfNeededAfterReconnection()
{
if (revalidateAfterReconnection) {
revalidateAfterReconnection = false;
log.warn("Revalidate lock at {} after reconnection", path);
- return revalidate(value, true, true);
+ return silentRevalidateOnce();
} else {
return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
}
}
- synchronized CompletableFuture<Void> revalidate(T newValue, boolean
trackPendingOperation,
- boolean
revalidateAfterReconnection) {
-
+ /**
+ * Revalidate the distributed lock if it is not released.
+ * This method is thread-safe and it will perform multiple re-validation
operations in turn.
+ */
+ synchronized CompletableFuture<Void> silentRevalidateOnce() {
final CompletableFuture<Void> trackFuture;
-
- if (!trackPendingOperation) {
- trackFuture = doRevalidate(newValue);
- } else if (pendingOperationFuture.isDone()) {
- pendingOperationFuture = doRevalidate(newValue);
- trackFuture = pendingOperationFuture;
+ // If the lock is first revalidated. the pending operation future
should always be completed.
+ if (pendingOperationFuture.isDone()) {
+ trackFuture = revalidate(value);
} else {
if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
- log.debug("Previous revalidating is not finished while
revalidate newValue={}, value={}, version={}",
- newValue, value, version);
+ log.debug("Previous revalidating is not finished while
revalidate value={}, version={}",
+ value, version);
}
- trackFuture = new CompletableFuture<>();
- trackFuture.whenComplete((unused, throwable) -> {
- doRevalidate(newValue).thenRun(() ->
trackFuture.complete(null))
- .exceptionally(throwable1 -> {
- trackFuture.completeExceptionally(throwable1);
- return null;
- });
- });
- pendingOperationFuture = trackFuture;
+ trackFuture = pendingOperationFuture.exceptionally(ex -> null)
Review Comment:
Can we avoid introducing exceptions to `pendingOperationFuture`? It is just
to avoid concurrent operations. So that we can just create a new one to point
to the previous one.
```java
pendingOperationFuture = pendingOperationFuture.thenCompose(__ -> new
CompletableFuture())
trackFuture = pendingOperationFuture.thenCompose(__ ->
revalidate(value).whenComplete((v, __) ->
pendingOperationFuture.complete(null)));
```
So that the `pendingOperationFuture` is only for sequencing the operations
without concerning any other behaviors.
The benefit of doing so is that it can avoid passing exceptions as state
values and maintain the clarity of the code.
--
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]
