Raul, My comments are below.
2015-10-22 22:22 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>: > Hi Yakov, > > Thanks for the review. > > Comments inline. > > Aside from them: being honest, do you think Javadoc like the following > snippets are useful and provide any value? More so in a test case... > > Snippet #1: > > /** > * @param topics Topics. > * @param fromIdx From index. > * @param cnt Count. > * @param singleMsg Single message flag. > * @throws MqttException If failed. > */ > This makes sense for me - this makes code looks consistent. > > Snippet #2: > > /** > * @throws Exception If failed. > */ > > To me, they are redundant. And I'm concerned about imposing superfluous > Javadoc "just because", or due to aesthetics, rather than value. > This is not so redundant. If some special condition should be mentioned - go ahead and put it to javadoc. This javadoc shows at least that developer has not just forget to put the description and there are no special conditions to mention. Moreover, I thought I saw couple of places where javadoc stated @throws, but method did not throw any exception. It seems I fixed that. Can you please take a look at my changes? Another point - javadoc to streamer public method (isBlockUntilConnected()) was completely omitted. I hope everyone agrees that configurational methods should be documented. > > Regards, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and > Messaging Engineer > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Raul! > > > > Thank you very much for addressing my comments! > > > > I like the code however there are still a couple of points (I committed > > everything to ignite-1747): > > > > 1. Please take a look at > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-StringOutput > > > Yeah, I'm familiar with this rule and I thought I was complying with it. > Could you give me an example where the code is not compliant? > throw new IgniteException("Exception while initializing MqttStreamer", t); - does not start with "Failed to.." and does not end with dot throw new IgniteException("Attempted to stop an already stopped MQTT Streamer"); throw new IgniteException("Exception while stopping MqttStreamer", t); + 'MqttStreamer' vs 'MQTT Streamer' inconsistency. I like 'MQTT Streamer' more. I thought I changed those lines. Can you please take a look at my changes? > > > > 2. org.apache.ignite.stream.mqtt.MqttStreamer#connected - volatile write > > then read of most likely the same value - I changed it to return true > > literal. > > connected = true; > > return connected; > > > > Agree. > > > > 3. blockUntilConnected - I would name this property syncConn > > > > Why? To me "blockUntilConnected" is clearer and more explicit than > "syncConn", which sounds mystic to an ordinary user who's not familiar with > the community's abbreviation table. It's ok for a private member, but not > for a property. In fact, syncConn requires the user to have the Javadoc > handy, blockUntilConnected doesn't. So I prefer the latter. > This name does not state that connection is blocked on start. Moreover, this adds no value as connection may disappear right after start and streamer should recover connection in background. Maybe we can remove it? > > > 4. Abbreviation rules violations - connected - conn, executor - exec, > > values - vals, count - cnt, message - msg > > > > Ok, this is a rule... yeah. But you can imagine it's extremely hard to > memorise someone else's glossary. In my opinion, abbreviations should be > used only when needed, not by default. An abbreviation subtracts > readability for the general user – long-term Ignite developers are probably > used to these by now. > > > > 5. What is the point of "connected" member? Client has "isConnected()"? > Is > > it similar to what you want to achieve? > > > > I'll look at the implementation of MqttClient.isConnected(), but off the > top of my head, it seems it could be replaced, yes. > > > > 6. Race on stop - 1 thread calls stop and successfully exits the method, > > retrier is not stopped (awaitTermination has not been called - should it > > be?) and can connect client back - is this the case? > > > > I'll have a look. > > > > 7. I think we use {@code } instead of <tt>... > > > > Correct. Thanks. > > On more point community should agree on - imports ordering and grouping. I > > will post another email. > > > > This was already added a few weeks ago in the Coding rules. That's fine then. Yakov
