Skip to content

Move QueryGranularity static fields to QueryGranularities#2980

Merged
fjy merged 3 commits intoapache:masterfrom
metamx:fix2979
May 17, 2016
Merged

Move QueryGranularity static fields to QueryGranularities#2980
fjy merged 3 commits intoapache:masterfrom
metamx:fix2979

Conversation

@drcrallen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@drcrallen drcrallen commented May 17, 2016

Only QueryGranularity and QueryGranularities changed here.

All the rest of the changes are simple class name changes for the static fields

@drcrallen drcrallen added the Bug label May 17, 2016
@gianm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

gianm commented May 17, 2016

I like the name QueryGranularities better than QueryGranularityUtil but otherwise 👍

@drcrallen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Added a test which showcases the bug. I can switch the class from util --> granularities. give me 1 sec

@drcrallen drcrallen added this to the 0.9.1 milestone May 17, 2016
@drcrallen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

marking as incompatible because it may require extensions to change their class

@drcrallen drcrallen changed the title Move QueryGranularity static fields to QueryGranularityUtil Move QueryGranularity static fields to QueryGranularities May 17, 2016
@fjy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

fjy commented May 17, 2016

👍

@fjy fjy merged commit 15ccf45 into apache:master May 17, 2016
@drcrallen drcrallen deleted the fix2979 branch May 17, 2016 23:25
fundead pushed a commit to fundead/druid that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2016
sirpkt added a commit to sirpkt/druid that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2016
{
final URL[] urls = ((URLClassLoader)QueryGranularity.class.getClassLoader()).getURLs();
final String className = QueryGranularity.class.getCanonicalName();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@drcrallen do you remember why you added 1000 iterations here? Was it necessary to catch a deadlock?

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants