Thomas Marshall has posted comments on this change. ( http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/12297 )
Change subject: IMPALA-8138: Reintroduce rpc debugging options ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (3 comments) This is not really ready for full review until https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/12672/ is submitted and it is rebased on top, I just updated it so that reviewers of that patch can see what I've done for the async case. http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/12297/1/be/src/runtime/krpc-backend-client.h File be/src/runtime/krpc-backend-client.h: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/12297/1/be/src/runtime/krpc-backend-client.h@27 PS1, Line 27: > Please add a class level comment. Done http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/12297/1/be/src/runtime/krpc-backend-client.h@28 PS1, Line 28: > Should this class show that it is a decorated form of > ControlServiceProxy, perhaps by having ControlServiceProxy as part > of it's name? ControlServiceProxyInjected? ControlServiceProxyDecorated? Good idea. "Injected" and "Decorated" seem awkward to me, is it clear enough if I go with ImpalaControlServiceProxy? > > I think this change introduces a convention, that we expect > ControlServiceProxy methods to be overridden in KrpcBackendClient? > If that's so then a comment somewhere should say that. Is it in > fact now a mistake to use ControlServiceProxy? Addressed in the class comment. > > It seems like KrpcBackendClient is mostly boilerplate. Did you > consider extending protoc-gen-krpc.cc to either generate the > decorated methods in ControlServiceProxy, or to generate > KrpcBackendClient? As discussed, while this is an interesting idea, the Kudu people don't have much interest in directly adding such a feature to krpc, and for now at least the benefit of automating this boiler-plate is probably not worth the work. http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/12297/1/be/src/runtime/query-state.h File be/src/runtime/query-state.h: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/12297/1/be/src/runtime/query-state.h@314 PS1, Line 314: eProxy > Will client_ be a more appropriate name ? Same for other places. I assume that if I change the class name back to something ending in "Proxy" that you're fine leaving this as is? -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/12297 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-Project: Impala-ASF Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I2046cb9dadf846ea90c04e95781b2bbde3325941 Gerrit-Change-Number: 12297 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Thomas Marshall <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Sherman <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Impala Public Jenkins <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Michael Ho <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Thomas Marshall <[email protected]> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:33:42 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
