Skip to content

EsAbortPolicy violates the RejectedExecutionHandler API #19508

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
jasontedor opened this issue Jul 19, 2016 · 2 comments · Fixed by #29075
Closed

EsAbortPolicy violates the RejectedExecutionHandler API #19508

jasontedor opened this issue Jul 19, 2016 · 2 comments · Fixed by #29075
Labels
:Core/Infra/Core Core issues without another label

Comments

@jasontedor
Copy link
Member

The interface for RejectedExecutionHandler says:

public interface RejectedExecutionHandler {
    /**
     * Method that may be invoked by a {@link ThreadPoolExecutor} when
     * {@link ThreadPoolExecutor#execute execute} cannot accept a
     * task.  This may occur when no more threads or queue slots are
     * available because their bounds would be exceeded, or upon
     * shutdown of the Executor.
     *
     * <p>In the absence of other alternatives, the method may throw
     * an unchecked {@link RejectedExecutionException}, which will be
     * propagated to the caller of {@code execute}.
     *
     * @param r the runnable task requested to be executed
     * @param executor the executor attempting to execute this task
     * @throws RejectedExecutionException if there is no remedy
     */
    void rejectedExecution(Runnable r, ThreadPoolExecutor executor);
}

It's the @throws clause that is violated. However, EsAbortPolicy throws an EsRejectedExecutionException which does not inherit from RejectedExecutionException. This leads to situations that commits like 770186f need to remedy. This should be cleaned up, but it's probably not a small task.

@jasontedor
Copy link
Member Author

ForceQueuePolicy violates too, although it's a lesser concern since a rejected execution exception there should never be thrown.

@lcawl lcawl added :Core/Infra/Core Core issues without another label and removed :Exceptions labels Feb 13, 2018
@jasontedor
Copy link
Member Author

This should be cleaned up, but it's probably not a small task.

This turned out to be wrong. 😄

I opened #29075.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
:Core/Infra/Core Core issues without another label
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants