[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16237995#comment-16237995
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on ARTEMIS-1499:
-----------------------------------------
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1638
@clebertsuconic
> Instead of changing the semantic of flush, lets just avoid the bug...
this PR should be closed IMO.
I'm not sure about it TBH: help to understand why we can't check if `flush`
is being called for within the event loop?
It is a wrong use of it as you said and we can check/validate it with ease
(or at least we could log it as a warning/error) and without any perf impact.
> ArtemisExecutor and ProcessorBase needs support of recursive blocking
> executions
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-1499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1499
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Francesco Nigro
> Assignee: Francesco Nigro
> Priority: Major
>
> The (ProcessorBase and) ArtemisExecutor allows recursive executions of
> blocking tasks (FutureLatch) that block the background event loop: it would
> be optimal to support recursive executions to handle them.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
