> On 2011-09-05 20:04:12, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/ZooKeeper.java, lines 90-94
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/1715/diff/1/?file=37951#file37951line90>
> >
> >     I suspect LOG is initialized in the static to make initialization 
> > explicit - given logEnv uses LOG as an argument. We'll lose this with this 
> > change, i.e. someone might re-refactor the code and lose the implicit 
> > ordering. At the very least it would be a good idea to document.
> 
> Camille Fournier wrote:
>     Pat,
>     I checked this into head already. Would you prefer I roll back this part 
> of the change or just add a comment?
> 
> Patrick Hunt wrote:
>     imo putting the initialization of LOG back into the static would be the 
> right thing to do, but feel free to just add the comment. This is a 
> small/discussed change, if you want you could a) just submit a second patch 
> to the jira that moves the init back into the static and adds a comment on 
> why we do it this way, then  go ahead and commit that change. I don't believe 
> we'd need to go through a more lengthy review...

Sounds good, will do.


- Camille


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1715/#review1753
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2011-09-05 15:55:47, Thomas Koch wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/1715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-09-05 15:55:47)
> 
> 
> Review request for zookeeper.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> .
> 
> 
> This addresses bug ZOOKEEPER-731.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-731
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/ZooKeeper.java 00bac9f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1715/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas
> 
>

Reply via email to