ddcprg commented on PR #9093:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/9093#issuecomment-1195191865
@Jackie-Jiang thanks for feed back. The reasons why I've decided to return a
counter instead are:
- a boolean tells the end criteria has reached but doesn't tell anything
about progress made, so if the end criteria is changed in future work we may
hit other edge cases
- returning a boolean in conjunction with the check in `consumeLoop()` will
be very specific to this bug where we cross the time threshold before consuming
a single record
- the conditionals in `consumeLoop()` could be simplified if `MessageBatch`
allowed random access to a specific offset, the contract could be simplified as
well
I was expecting to make a few more changes before opening the PR. However,
having said this, I am actually more interested in fix this bug rather than
making the code more generic so I'm happy to change the code and implement it
with a boolean as you advise if expedites the fix.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
