ptupitsyn commented on a change in pull request #8480:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8480#discussion_r526889338
##########
File path:
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/client/thin/TcpClientChannel.java
##########
@@ -303,7 +312,7 @@ private ClientRequestFuture send(ClientOperation op,
Consumer<PayloadOutputChann
private <T> T receive(ClientRequestFuture pendingReq,
Function<PayloadInputChannel, T> payloadReader)
throws ClientException {
try {
- byte[] payload = pendingReq.get();
+ byte[] payload = timeout > 0 ? pendingReq.get(timeout) :
pendingReq.get();
Review comment:
As a user, I would expect sync and async operations to behave the same
when a timeout is set without extra manual steps.
Anyway, let's keep it this way for now since a refactoring in coming in
[IGNITE-13496](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13496).
##########
File path:
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/client/thin/TcpClientChannel.java
##########
@@ -303,7 +312,7 @@ private ClientRequestFuture send(ClientOperation op,
Consumer<PayloadOutputChann
private <T> T receive(ClientRequestFuture pendingReq,
Function<PayloadInputChannel, T> payloadReader)
throws ClientException {
try {
- byte[] payload = pendingReq.get();
+ byte[] payload = timeout > 0 ? pendingReq.get(timeout) :
pendingReq.get();
Review comment:
As a user, I would expect sync and async operations to behave the same
when a timeout is set without extra manual steps.
Anyway, let's keep it this way for now since a refactoring is coming in
[IGNITE-13496](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13496).
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
