Introduced lifecycle for compression providers #284
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
cckellogg
reviewed
Jun 18, 2020
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pc.compressionProviders[msgMeta.GetCompression()] = provider |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to close these providers when we the consumer is closed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's done at line 683 above
cckellogg
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2020
jerrypeng
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
Use individual instances of compression providers for each producer/consumer, with a defined lifecycle, instead of a static singleton instance.
Some compression implementation can use private state to improve the performance. Typically these need to be used by a single go-routine. For this, it's better to have private instances.