We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
.get
When calling .get(duration, unit) for an OperationTimeout, there's a possibility that the underlying operation can timeout, resulting in a CheckedOperationTimeoutException wrapped in an ExecutionException. However, when the MemecachedClient implementation receives this exception for most of the methods that operate on these behaviors, it ends up simply propagating this up as a RuntimeException, rather than actually representing that the request timed out. For these, the proposal is to add an additional check to this code for:
.get(duration, unit)
... } catch (ExecutionException e) { if (e.getCause() instanceof CancellationException) { throw (CancellationException) e.getCause(); } else if (e.getCause() instanceof TimeoutException) { throw new OperationTimeoutException("Timeout waiting for value", e); } else { throw new RuntimeException("Exception waiting for value", e); } ....
I've also created a PR for this, and will attach it to this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Propagate TimeoutExceptions from OperationFutures as `OperationTi…
TimeoutException
OperationFuture
ea8a14f
…meoutException`s fixes awslabs#48
OperationTimeoutException
No branches or pull requests
When calling
.get(duration, unit)
for an OperationTimeout, there's a possibility that the underlying operation can timeout, resulting in a CheckedOperationTimeoutException wrapped in an ExecutionException. However, when the MemecachedClient implementation receives this exception for most of the methods that operate on these behaviors, it ends up simply propagating this up as a RuntimeException, rather than actually representing that the request timed out. For these, the proposal is to add an additional check to this code for:I've also created a PR for this, and will attach it to this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: