[GitHub] [accumulo] ctubbsii commented on pull request #2282: Recreated the SimpleTimer functionality with the new ThreadPools class

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ctubbsii commented on pull request #2282:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2282#issuecomment-926000446


   I'm not sure it was necessary to create a shared thread pool for all SimpleTimer use cases. In fact, that was probably likely to create problems for us, with some operations blocking others, due to overuse of the off-the-shelf SimpleTimer class. I did notice this difference when I reviewed your original ThreadPools changes, but considered it an improvement, as it decoupled unnecessarily intertwined operations. I think going back to a single thread pool for these might actually be a regression. Do we really need a SimpleTimer-like object with a shared thread pool? I feel like it's going to bit us in future to have something off-the-shelf like that. However, I do like the explicit naming to at least make it clear what the intended behavior is.


-- 
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: notifications-unsubscribe@accumulo.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org