lindong28 commented on code in PR #21589:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21589#discussion_r1089917554
##########
flink-connectors/flink-connector-base/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/connector/base/source/reader/SingleThreadMultiplexSourceReaderBase.java:
##########
@@ -113,4 +115,26 @@ public SingleThreadMultiplexSourceReaderBase(
SourceReaderContext context) {
super(elementsQueue, splitFetcherManager, recordEmitter, config,
context);
}
+
+ /**
+ * This constructor behaves like {@link
#SingleThreadMultiplexSourceReaderBase(Supplier,
+ * RecordEmitter, Configuration, SourceReaderContext)}, but accepts a
specific {@link
+ * FutureCompletingBlockingQueue}, {@link RecordEvaluator} and {@link
+ * SingleThreadFetcherManager}.
+ */
+ public SingleThreadMultiplexSourceReaderBase(
+ FutureCompletingBlockingQueue<RecordsWithSplitIds<E>>
elementsQueue,
+ SingleThreadFetcherManager<E, SplitT> splitFetcherManager,
+ RecordEmitter<E, T, SplitStateT> recordEmitter,
+ @Nullable RecordEvaluator<T> eofRecordEvaluator,
Review Comment:
Not sure if we have the precedence of splitting a FLIP's implementation into
multiple PRs. I am a bit concerned that it can make the FLIP's PR harder to
track and manage. It should be OK to split the implementation into multiple
commits in the same PR.
Since we can not get concrete user-side benefits before making the changes
in the kafka connector etc, would it be simpler to put all of them in the same
PR?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
