gortiz commented on code in PR #10192: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/10192#discussion_r1136862867
########## pinot-segment-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/segment/spi/index/IndexService.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +/** + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ + +package org.apache.pinot.segment.spi.index; + +import com.google.common.collect.Sets; +import java.util.HashSet; +import java.util.Optional; +import java.util.ServiceLoader; +import java.util.Set; + + +/** + * This is the entry point of the Index SPI. + * + * Ideally, if we used some kind of injection system, this class should be injected into a Pinot context all classes can + * receive when they are built. Given that Pinot doesn't have that, we have to relay on static fields. Review Comment: TL;DR: I think it is better to keep it here, but I don't have an strong opinion about that and we can move it if consensus. Why I think it is better to be here: I don't like the idea of adding these comments into a private attribute. Sure, it may be slightly better for someone that reads the class, but these lines may also be useful for callers. I would expect callers ask why they have to use this class by doing `IndexService.getInstance().getAllIndexes()`, which is quite verbose, instead of simply calling `IndexService.getAllIndexes()`. Well, they can answer that question is that we hope that, in a (probably far) future, you could simply inject the IndexService instance in your constructor. A caller can understand that if they open the Javadoc of `IndexService` in their own IDE without actually needed to read the source code of `IndexService`. If we move these lines to the attribute javadoc instead of the class javadoc, the caller would need to open the class, hope that they have the sources downloaded and then go to some private attribute they don't actually know their existence in order to read that. At the end of the day this comment mixes information related to the usability (why we decided to show this interface) and the implementation (why we didn't use other ways). The former is interesting for callers and therefore should be attached to some public concept (like the class or the getInstance method) and the later is interesting for the implementator (and therefore may be attached to the private attribute). -- 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
