Safer error handling in BlockingOperatorToFuture #3361
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
It is unlikely error changed between the two calls in this operator but regardless, one should read volatile variables once. 👍 |
|
👍 |
abersnaze
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2015
…tter-error-handling Safer error handling in BlockingOperatorToFuture
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Not very important since
onErrorshould be called once, but anyway it'sAtomicReferenceand we need to store the value returned fromget()locally.P.S. I don't use
Futures, just found this piece of code.