> On May 11, 2013, 12:30 a.m., Will McQueen wrote:
> > flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/clients/log4jappender/LoadBalancingLog4jAppender.java,
> >  line 176
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11066/diff/1/?file=290483#file290483line176>
> >
> >     Is it expected that the connect timeout and the request timeout both be 
> > set to the same value, or should these have separate values?

I'd like to keep the configuration of the log4jappenders simple - so I just 
left it the same.


- Hari


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11066/#review20439
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 11, 2013, 12:23 a.m., Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11066/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2013, 12:23 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Flume.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added timeout configuration to both log4j appender and load balancing log4j 
> appender
> 
> 
> This addresses bug FLUME-2042.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-2042
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/clients/log4jappender/LoadBalancingLog4jAppender.java
>  3172e21 
>   
> flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/clients/log4jappender/Log4jAppender.java
>  0ba56d3 
>   
> flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/clients/log4jappender/TestLoadBalancingLog4jAppender.java
>  103bcb6 
>   
> flume-ng-clients/flume-ng-log4jappender/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/clients/log4jappender/TestLog4jAppender.java
>  211837b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11066/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added new unit tests. Ran full build, all tests pass.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hari Shreedharan
> 
>

Reply via email to