Github user zhijiangW commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4485
@NicoK , Thank you for reviews!
Considering the difference between `FixedBufferPool` and `LocalBufferPool`,
I think you are right. I also think of this question when implement this new
type. Maybe I misunderstood the stephan's meaning from google doc.
I proposed the new `BufferPoolListener` for interaction easily between
`RemoteInputChannel` and `BufferPool`, because `RemoteInputChannel` may request
more floating buffers and wants to be notified more than once, and the boolean
return can decide the behavior easily. And it can replace the current
`EventListener` provided in `BufferProvider` interface. In order not to affect
the current process, I did not replace that in this PR.
I referred to the existing code format when implementation and found many
cases keep the space after <p>. Thank you for letting me know the new rule. I
may modify it next week based on your comments.
---
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 enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
