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

[FLINK-8933] Avoid calling Class#newInstance(part 1) #6015

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

yanghua
Copy link
Contributor

@yanghua yanghua commented May 15, 2018

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request avoid calling Class#newInstance

Brief change log

  • replaced Class#newInstance to Class#getDeclaredConstructor#newInstance()

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests*.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

@yanghua
Copy link
Contributor Author

yanghua commented May 15, 2018

cc @zentol splitted it into two PRs please review and apologize to you again

Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

@StephanEwen
Copy link
Contributor

Similar as to #6016: Should we close this PR until we have consensus whether we want to change this?

Especially the performance implications in methods/classes on the "hot code paths" makes this a tricky change...

@yanghua
Copy link
Contributor Author

yanghua commented May 24, 2018

OK, agree, closing this PR~

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants