Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> Input on a change


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Input on a change
Fair enough, if you think it is an anti-pattern then perhaps you can
suggest an alternative that allows one to write tests that are (in
descending order of priority):

1. Quick and easy to setup and teardown
2. Repeatably testable and debuggable in an IDE without having to resort to
the external build tool
3. Testable in parallel, i.e. having more than one build running on a CI
server, so need some way to avoid port clashes
4. Cross-platform - i.e. run the exact same build sequence on multiple OSes.

Ishaaq

On 16 April 2012 22:55, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe that this change is inspired by someone that runs zk embedded.
> Personally I'm not moved by the testing argument, embedding the server for
> testing is a bit of an anti pattern in my mind.
>
> From my phone
> On Apr 15, 2012 11:20 PM, "Ishaaq Chandy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd go so far as to say that even the server-code should avoid
> System.exit.
> > Just because it is "meant" to be a standalone system doesn't mean that
> code
> > that makes it impossible to embed it should be encouraged.
> >
> > For e.g, we embed a local version of ZK to be used inside our unit tests.
> > This makes it much easier for us to control ZK to coincide with test
> > expectations as well as making for much faster build times. It would be a
> > shame if the embedded ZK started killing the JVM.
> >
> > Ishaaq
> >
> > On 16 April 2012 04:28, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good point.
> > > I think this change should be fine for the server portion of the code,
> > > since it's designed to be run as a standalone system. But for the
> > > client connection to also call system.exit on such an error is
> > > overreaching for all the reasons listed below.
> > >
> > > C
> > >
> > > 2012/4/15 Віталій Тимчишин <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I really would not like for any library to perform a System.exit
> call.
> > > This
> > > > would make huge program exit out of sudden (think about j2ee, you may
> > be
> > > > bitten by security manager).  Note that there are more or less safe
> > > errors,
> > > > like StackOverflowError.
> > > > Also System.exit make testing nightmare. E.g. maven2 silently skips
> any
> > > > tests after the one that calls System.exit. And everything's green.
> > > > As for me good options are:
> > > > 1) Call user-provided uncaught exception handler. Use the one from
> the
> > > > thread that created the connection if one is not specified explicity.
> > > > 1) Stop everything, notifying user with a global watcher. If it's
> > > possible,
> > > > clean any static state (e.g. restart threads) and allow to restart
> > > > connection.
> > > > In any case, call user code. Good system already know how to react
> (it
> > > may
> > > > want to send email to admin), allow it to perform well.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn.
> > > >
> > > > 2012/4/13 Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm trying to evaluate a patch that Jeremy Stribling has submitted,
> > and
> > > I'd
> > > >> like some feedback from the user base on it.
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1442
> > > >>
> > > >> The current behavior of ZK when we get an uncaught exception is to
> log
> > > it
> > > >> and try to move on. This is arguably not the right thing to do, and
> > will
> > > >> possibly cause ZK to limp along with a bad VM (say, in an OOM state)
> > for
> > > >> longer than it should.
> > > >> The patch proposes that when we get an instance of java.lang.Error,
> we
> > > >> should do a system.exit to fast-fail the process. With the possible
> > > >> exception of ThreadDeath (which may or may not be an unrecoverable
> > > system
> > > >> state depending on the thread), I think this makes sense, but I
> would
> > > like
> > > >> to hear from others if they have an opinion. I think it's better to
> > kill
> > > >> the process and let your monitoring services detect process death