[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-966?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14652914#comment-14652914
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-966:
--------------------------------------
Github user caofangkun commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/658#discussion_r36149821
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/ConfigValidation.java ---
@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@
/**
* Declares methods for validating configuration values.
*/
- public static interface FieldValidator {
--- End diff --
This interface should not be annotated.
Could you please have a check?
> ConfigValidation.DoubleValidator doesn't really validate whether the type of
> the object is a double
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STORM-966
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-966
> Project: Apache Storm
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Boyang Jerry Peng
> Assignee: Boyang Jerry Peng
> Priority: Minor
>
> ConfigValidation.DoubleValidator code only checks if the object is null
> whether if the object is a instance of Number which is a parent class of
> Double.
> DoubleValidator is only used once in Config.java and in that instance:
> public static final Object TOPOLOGY_STATS_SAMPLE_RATE_SCHEMA =
> ConfigValidation.DoubleValidator;
> can just be set to:
> public static final Object TOPOLOGY_STATS_SAMPLE_RATE_SCHEMA = NUMBER.class;
> Then we can just get rid of the misleading function
> ConfigValidation.DoubleValidator since it doesn't really check if a object is
> of double type thus the validator function doesn't really do anything and the
> name is misleading. In previous commit
> https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/214ee7454548b884c591991b1faea770d1478cec
> Number.Class was used anyway
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
