> On June 3, 2015, 7:43 a.m., Abraham Elmahrek wrote:
> > server/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/handler/HandlerUtils.java, line 71
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34930/diff/1/?file=976396#file976396line71>
> >
> >     What's the difference between using `Repository` versus 
> > `ConnectorManager`?

ConnectorManager will call Repository to complete its work, so the function is 
identical. In HandlerUtils.java, there are three methods and the other two 
methods both take "String identifier, Repository repository" as the signature. 
Making method getConnectorIdFromIdentifier also taking "String identifier, 
Repository repository" as the signature will makes the code more consistent.


- Dian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34930/#review86375
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 2, 2015, 8:35 a.m., Dian Fu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34930/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 2, 2015, 8:35 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Sqoop.
> 
> 
> Repository: sqoop-sqoop2
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In HandlerUtils, there is code like this:
>  if (repository.findJob(identifier) != null) {
>       jobId = repository.findJob(identifier).getPersistenceId();
>       ...
>  }
> This will execute repository.findJob twice, this is unnecessary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/connector/ConnectorManager.java d1537bf 
>   server/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/handler/ConnectorRequestHandler.java 
> 5128a27 
>   server/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/handler/HandlerUtils.java 93ff60b 
>   server/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/handler/JobRequestHandler.java 
> c96d66d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34930/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dian Fu
> 
>

Reply via email to