-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/53917/#review156363
-----------------------------------------------------------




geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/wan/parallel/ParallelGatewaySenderQueue.java
 
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/53917/#comment226584>

    Why did you take the removeMembersWithSameOrNewerVersion and 
retainMembersWithSameOrNewerVersion calls out? Is it because every member is 
newer than 8.0? If so, then can we get rid of all the processing below the 
removeMembersWithSameOrNewerVersion call since the recipients will be empty?


- Barry Oglesby


On Nov. 19, 2016, 12:35 a.m., nabarun nag wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/53917/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 19, 2016, 12:35 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Barry Oglesby, Jason Huynh, Dan Smith, and xiaojian 
> zhou.
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> All parallel sender queues shared one BatchRemovalThread, which led to the 
> case that if BatchRemovalThread thread was killed by one sender, all 
> secondary sender queues will keep growing as no prq remove messages will be 
> sent to them.
> Also, the static variables in ParallelGatewaySenderQueue needs to be 
> converted in to instance variables, so that the senders don't share these 
> variables and work independent of each other.
> 
> Fix:
> statics converted to final instance variables.
> cleanUpStatics function removed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/GemFireCacheImpl.java
>  7b2e7ca 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/wan/parallel/ParallelGatewaySenderQueue.java
>  30773f9 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53917/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> nabarun nag
> 
>

Reply via email to