As I understand, I can get my task done earlier if I have that in handleIdleTime() rathe than waiting for endWindow().
But can I depend solely on handleIdleTime() ? Is invocation of handleIdleTime() guaranteed in the operator per window cycle? On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> wrote: > The time you spend in handleIdleTime could still be less than a window > interval. If you move your processing to end window, since end window is > called when end window is received from upstream you would delay the > results being sent to downstream. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I understand that handleIdleTime() is called when the operator is idling > > and is intended for auxiliary processing. Also, if the operator does not > > have anything to do, it must block for some time to avoid busy loop. > > What happens if my processing within handleIdleTime() exceeds the amount > of > > time it would have blocked otherwise? In that case does it make a > > difference whether the processing is done in handleIdleTime() or in > > endWindow() call? > > > > To clarify the question, is this the right approach: > > > > handleIdleTime() > > { > > do some work W; > > t = time to do work W; > > sleep(SPIN_MILLIS - t); > > } > > > > What is the right approach if t > SPIN_MILLIS? > > > > Thanks. > > -- > > Regards, > > Bhupesh Chawda > > >
