> On July 13, 2017, 1:40 a.m., Galen O'Sullivan wrote:
> > geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/PutAllRequestOperationHandler.java
> > Lines 38 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60718/diff/4/?file=1775032#file1775032line38>
> >
> >     I had thought of operation handlers as being stateless. Is this not the 
> > case?
> 
> Brian Rowe wrote:
>     Hmm, now that you mention it, this will likely fail spectacularly the 
> first time two threads run getAlls at the same time.  Good catch.  I'll see 
> if Alexander and Udo can fix this as part of the refactoring work they're 
> currently doing.

>From a code maintainability perspective I'd rather have us make a fresh 
>handler for each request rather than having something that's supposed to be 
>used like a singleton but isn't actually a singleton. Turning this into a 
>singleton is also something I'd rather avoid.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60718/#review180369
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 12, 2017, 6:27 p.m., Brian Rowe wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/60718/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 12, 2017, 6:27 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Alexander Murmann, Bruce Schuchardt, Galen 
> O'Sullivan, Hitesh Khamesra, and Udo Kohlmeyer.
> 
> 
> Bugs: GEODE-2997
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2997
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changed get response to indicate if LookupFailure was a missing key or key 
> with null value, added test
> Added GetAllRequestOperationHandler and unit test
> Added PutAllRequestOperationHandler and unit test
> Added an integration test covering the putAll and getAll operations
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/ProtobufStreamProcessor.java
>  714639274 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/GetAllRequestOperationHandler.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/GetRequestOperationHandler.java
>  13b156f99 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/PutAllRequestOperationHandler.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/PutRequestOperationHandler.java
>  fecf01d7b 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/RemoveRequestOperationHandler.java
>  e1fef85b4 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/utilities/ProtobufRequestUtilities.java
>  b246a501b 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/utilities/ProtobufResponseUtilities.java
>  d6ef2788e 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/utilities/ProtobufUtilities.java
>  924979329 
>   geode-protobuf/src/main/proto/clientProtocol.proto d94c0f312 
>   geode-protobuf/src/main/proto/region_API.proto 3108cb7c3 
>   geode-protobuf/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/MessageUtil.java 
> fee9448af 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/RoundTripCacheConnectionJUnitTest.java
>  612b9c9a4 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/GetAllRequestOperationHandlerJUnitTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/GetRequestOperationHandlerJUnitTest.java
>  b7d52019e 
>   
> geode-protobuf/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/PutAllRequestOperationHandlerJUnitTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60718/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added unit tests for new operation handlers
> Added integration test covering new operations
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian Rowe
> 
>

Reply via email to