[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2069?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14249058#comment-14249058
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-2069:
---------------------------------------------
With your argument a few comments above, you actually convinced me that the
synchronized(outgoingQueue) blocks in cleanup and queuePacket aren't actually
needed. I haven't checked all 6 you mention, but we might be able to leave them
out. The case of cleanup wasn't clear to me before because we do multiple
iterations over outgoingQueue, but as you argued, doTransport and cleanup won't
be executed concurrently, so it is ok to leave the synchronized block out. Does
it clarify?
> Netty Support for ClientCnxnSocket
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-2069
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2069
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Hongchao Deng
> Assignee: Hongchao Deng
> Attachments: QA-run-nettyclient-for-test.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v10-channel.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v11.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v12.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v14.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v15-jdk6.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v15-jdk6.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v16.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v3.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v4.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v5.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v6.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v7.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v8.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v9.1.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2069-v9.2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069-v9.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2069.patch,
> draft.patch
>
>
> Review Board: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27244/diff/#
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
