-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 239
[CALCITE-6811] Refactor deprecated httpclient API usage in Avatica #274
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
+40
−47
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I'd prefer an approach like this for adapting to the new
ensureOpen(...)syntax since it avoids the need for any pass-by-instance semantics:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you elaborate @chrisdennis ?
I couldn't find ensureOpen() in either the apache HttpClient or Avatica codebase.
Google found it in some nio implementation classes, but I don't see how that's related.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you mean using the execute() calls that pass a Handler, those don't return error codes, and would make implementing the retry logic unneccarily convoluted.
The response is already in a try-with-resources block, so there is no danger of leakage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry - I've no idea why I wrote ensureOpen... you're right I mean't
executeOpen(...). I'm not suggesting migrating toexecute(...)calls though. I meant that if you formulate things like above then you don't need to compute theHttpHostin advance using a "dummy" HttpPost/URI, and you don't need to pass the result in via the new instance variable, you can just reorder things slightly, and keep everything contained within the call stack.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, that would work, but we're currently caching and pre-computing as much as possible.
Your version is slightly less efficient, as it needs to call RoutingSupport.determineHost for each send() call.
But we can avoid the Dummy post by postponing the host detection, I will do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have removed the dummy post, please re-check @chrisdennis .