ctubbsii commented on code in PR #2990: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2990#discussion_r984813616
########## server/manager/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/manager/Manager.java: ########## @@ -207,7 +208,7 @@ public class Manager extends AbstractServer private ManagerState state = ManagerState.INITIAL; - Fate<Manager> fate; + private final AtomicReference<Fate<Manager>> fateReady = new AtomicReference<>(null); Review Comment: I considered that, but having the fate object and the countdownlatch in separate variables means that separate threads wouldn't necessarily see the updated fate object unless I also made that voloatile, which seemed redundant. The best way to do it seemed to have the volatile reference be the same object that is monitored for readiness. -- 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]
