Skip to content
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

fix #3159: simplifying the resync logic #5

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

shawkins
Copy link
Owner

Description

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change
  • Chore (non-breaking change which doesn't affect codebase;
    test, version modification, documentation, etc.)

Checklist

  • Code contributed by me aligns with current project license: Apache 2.0
  • I Added CHANGELOG entry regarding this change
  • I have implemented unit tests to cover my changes
  • I have added/updated the javadocs and other documentation accordingly
  • No new bugs, code smells, etc. in SonarCloud report
  • I tested my code in Kubernetes
  • I tested my code in OpenShift

…tsheet (fabric8io#3125)

* Fixes fabric8io#2526

Updated CHEATSHEET.md
Added example for how to configure okhttp logging-interceptor.

* Updated PR

* Updated changes

* Added in table of contents

* Update CHEATSHEET.md
@shawkins shawkins force-pushed the remove-df-after branch 3 times, most recently from 6de2b0c to 76c6c9d Compare May 24, 2021 13:21
shawkins and others added 10 commits May 24, 2021 20:14
using a shared resync scheduler
allowing handlers to not have dedicated threads
making run blocking
…nformers/cache/SharedProcessor.java

Co-authored-by: Rohan Kumar  <[email protected]>
…nformers/SharedSchedulerTest.java

Co-authored-by: Rohan Kumar  <[email protected]>
also adding a method to get the api class from the informer
moved some logic into util, creating a common scheduler and thread pool
treats the informer resync period as the only meaningful resync
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.

3 participants