Skip to content

Conversation

@kmgowda
Copy link
Contributor

@kmgowda kmgowda commented Sep 7, 2019

Change log description
A new option "-fork" option is added; by default it is set to True; if it is set to false, then new fixed thread pool is used.
Another new option "-kafka" is added; by default it is set to False; it it is set to true, then kafka bench-marking is conducted.

Purpose of the change
Fixes #57 , #60

What the code does
when user supplies -fork false; conventional thread pool is used; otherwise fork join pool is used.
when user supplied -kafka true; the kafka bench-marking is conducted.

Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda [email protected]

Keshava Munegowda added 12 commits September 6, 2019 15:41
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
@kmgowda kmgowda changed the title Issue 57 7 & 60: Add "-fork " and "-kafka" options Issue 57 & 60: Add "-fork " and "-kafka" options Sep 7, 2019
kmgowda and others added 3 commits September 8, 2019 12:22
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keshava Munegowda <[email protected]>
@RaulGracia RaulGracia self-requested a review September 24, 2019 20:29
Copy link
Contributor

@RaulGracia RaulGracia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Blocking for safety until reverting #63.

@maddisondavid
Copy link
Contributor

Are the two options -fork and -kafka related? On an initial pass of the code it looks like this could be better handled (and digested) as two different PRs

@kmgowda
Copy link
Contributor Author

kmgowda commented Jan 11, 2020

@maddisondavid
yes, it could be handled as two separate PRs..but, since, I was moved out of the team and i was busy in taking up other activities; before i left, I just combined my pending work into single PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add the option for thread pool executor

3 participants