[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8737?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16378912#comment-16378912
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-8737:
---------------------------------------
Github user NicoK commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5583#discussion_r170988543
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/partition/consumer/UnionInputGate.java
---
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
* +--------------------+
* </pre>
*
- * It is possible to recursively union union input gates.
+ * <strong>It is NOT possible to recursively union union input
gates.</strong>
--- End diff --
That would be a more invasive change in several places using `InputGate`s
and we actually are able to use any other input gate types (if there were some)
- just the recursive union does not make sense. So I guess, excluding ourself
is the better approach here in terms of extensibility. Think of it as we're
excluding this use not because we did not implement `pollNextBuffer` but
because it does not make sense and we do not want this recursion.
> Creating a union of UnionGate instances will fail with
> UnsupportedOperationException when retrieving buffers
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-8737
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8737
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Network
> Reporter: Nico Kruber
> Assignee: Nico Kruber
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> FLINK-8589 introduced a new polling method but did not implement
> {{UnionInputGate#pollNextBufferOrEvent()}}. This prevents UnionGate instances
> from containing a UnionGate instance which is explicitly allowed by its
> documentation and interface.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
