> On Oct. 29, 2013, 4:08 p.m., Mike Drob wrote: > > fate/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/fate/Fate.java, line 53 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15002/diff/2/?file=373116#file373116line53> > > > > Is an eventual stop good enough? Do we want some logic to preempt the > > currently running fate operations?
That was what I was referring to in the description about whether that is sufficient. - John ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15002/#review27686 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:52 p.m., John Vines wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15002/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 29, 2013, 3:52 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-1307 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1307 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > First pass at shutting down FATE. Maybe makes sense to daemonize the thread > and add a daemonized monitor thread that 'manages' them somehow in case > operation is stuck? > > > Diffs > ----- > > fate/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/fate/Fate.java bd36edb > server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/Master.java c029ae5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15002/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > John Vines > >
