Github user fmthoma commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6021#discussion_r192861127
--- Diff:
flink-connectors/flink-connector-kinesis/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kinesis/util/TimeoutLatch.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.kinesis.util;
+
+public class TimeoutLatch {
+
+ private final Object lock = new Object();
+ private volatile boolean waiting;
+
+ public void await(long timeout) throws InterruptedException {
+ synchronized (lock) {
+ waiting = true;
+ lock.wait(timeout);
+ }
+ }
+
+ public void trigger() {
+ if (waiting) {
+ synchronized (lock) {
+ waiting = false;
--- End diff --
Why? I don't think a double-check lock is necessary here: There is no harm
in setting a variable to `false` that is already `false`, and neither in
`notify`ing a lock for which nobody is `wait`ing. But sure, it wouldn't harm,
either. Do you insist?
---
