[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17762698#comment-17762698
]
Roman Puchkovskiy commented on IGNITE-18499:
--------------------------------------------
Item 4 was implemented in IGNITE-20256, so I removed the item from the list
> Make IncomingSnapshotCopier behave closer to LocalSnapshotCopier
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-18499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18499
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Roman Puchkovskiy
> Priority: Major
> Labels: ignite-3
> Fix For: 3.0.0-beta2
>
>
> There are a few differences between {{IncomingSnapshotCopier}} and
> {{{}LocalSnapshotCopier{}}}. JRaft seems to be very sensitive to little
> changes in behavior because it relies on many invariants, some of them
> implicit, to function correctly. Hence it is best to have our copier mimic
> the stock one as fully as possible (where it's feasible).
> Here are the differences:
> # On cancellation, the copier should be transferred to an erroneous state
> (using {{{}setError(){}}})
> # On closure, the copier should be cancelled
> # The stock copier does not invoke {{join()}} on cancellation, but our
> implementation does. On the one hand, waiting seems to make sense because it
> allows to save retries, but it's a difference from the stock logic which
> might be dangerous.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
