[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-3687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17472650#comment-17472650
]
Jean Helou commented on JAMES-3687:
-----------------------------------
all these already have a wait time built in to account for the eventual
consistency of remove
* verride public void awaitRemove() \{ try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (
* InterruptedException e) \{ throw new RuntimeException(e); } }
However as usual with fixed wait time maybe this is too short. There is no API
to observe applicable delete filters and I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Two options here:
* derive the wait time from ENV defaulting to 100ms, so the 100 can be
overriden for CI
* change all the tests assertions to use Awaitility... and wait for eventual
consistency
> Implements Apache Pulsar based Mailqueue
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: JAMES-3687
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-3687
> Project: James Server
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Queue
> Reporter: Jean Helou
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> An apache pulsar based mailqueue offers a different set of compromises over
> the existing mailqueue implementations:
> pros:
> * pulsar is a distributed queue
> * pulsar offers scheduling facilities making it easier to implement delayed
> queues
> cons:
> * being fully distributed some consistency guarantees cannot be honored for
> flush and filter since the flushing and filtering commands take time to
> propagate in the cluster
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
