Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-196450856
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-196447926
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-194392972
+1 once @revans2's thread safety concern is addressed.
We may want to document that this feature requires ack'ing to be enabled,
but that can be handled
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-194341881
@arunmahadevan Thanks for doing this. I still have not had time to dig
into this feature in as much detail as I would like, but from what I have seen
so far the
Github user revans2 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#discussion_r55532861
--- Diff:
storm-core/src/jvm/org/apache/storm/topology/StatefulBoltExecutor.java ---
@@ -148,4 +148,19 @@ private void fail(List tuples) {
}
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-194268412
@revans2 @ptgoetz I have refactored the code and removed the auto
anchoring/acking for both stateful and non-stateful bolts in a stateful
topology. Currently
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-19394
@arunmahadevan I agree mostly with @ptgoetz I wanted to understand the
contract (thanks for the link), and that the new contract is consistent with
our current
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-193934901
@arunmahadevan Can you document the behavior of non-stateful bolts in a
topology with stateful bolts?
In a traditional topology (i.e. one that does not include
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-193616307
@revans2 anchoring/acking in enforced for stateful & non-stateful bolts in
a stateful topology to provide at-least once guarantee for the state updates.
For the
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-193280978
I didn't dig very deeply into the design of the stateful topology
check-pointing so perhaps this is a very naive question, but why do all of the
tuples flowing through
Github user satishd commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190#issuecomment-193220524
+1 LGTM
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
GitHub user arunmahadevan opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1190
[STORM-1608] Fix stateful topology acking behavior
Right now the acking is automatically taken care of for the non-stateful
bolts in a stateful topology. This leads to double acking if
13 matches
Mail list logo
