accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From keith-turner <>
Subject [GitHub] accumulo pull request #134: ACCUMULO-4391 Added synchronization around the a...
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:00:41 GMT
Github user keith-turner commented on a diff in the pull request:
    --- Diff: core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/rfile/bcfile/
    @@ -62,12 +62,15 @@ public BoundedRangeFileInputStream(FSDataInputStream in, long offset,
long lengt
       public int available() throws IOException {
    -    int avail = in.available();
    -    if (pos + avail > end) {
    -      avail = (int) (end - pos);
    -    }
    +    final FSDataInputStream inLocal = in;
    +    synchronized (inLocal) {
    +      int avail = inLocal.available();
    --- End diff --
    > I am considering this, but others had commented to me that adhering to the API as
close as possible was a good thing. 
    Thats a hard call to make, I don't know what the right answer is.  We can make BoundedRangeInputStream
work with the code that currently calls it.  To make it work with code that might call it
in the future, need to follow the interface javadoc.  For example the way hadoop uses it could
change in the future.
    Calling `` then `in.available()` seems like the correct thing to do.  However,
based on what @phrocker  said, `` call may have a performance penalty, with no real
benefit.  I don't really like that.   One thing I am thinking is that always returning `end-pos`
seems more correct than only calling `in.available()` w/o calling ``.

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 or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.

View raw message