#11 Cleaning redis service and adding ttl getter method

Merged
jonathan merged 4 commits from kris/refactor_redis_service into master 4 years ago
kris commented 4 years ago
There is no content yet.
kris changed title from WIP: (testing) Cleaning redis service to Cleaning redis service adn adding ttl getter method 4 years ago
kris commented 4 years ago
Poster

@jonathan please review

@jonathan please review
jonathan was assigned by kris 4 years ago
kris changed title from Cleaning redis service adn adding ttl getter method to Cleaning redis service and adding ttl getter method 4 years ago
jonathan commented 4 years ago
Owner

@kris -- Things that make me wary:

  • use of var in a low-level library. The lower you go, the more explicit types should be. Why introduce another potential source of errors? Can we remove var and replace with class names?
  • use of streams/lambdas/collecting and in general anywhere we are now creating new objects when we could have avoided it. low level libraries should generally prefer for-loops and static classes. Can you review and avoid using stream methods and allocating new objects where possible?

Please give me a heads-up in advance before refactoring more library code. With the above changes I will merge this, but frankly I don’t see a big benefit given the risk. If we had more comprehensive test coverage I would feel better about the risk.

@kris -- Things that make me wary: * use of `var` in a low-level library. The lower you go, the more explicit types should be. Why introduce another potential source of errors? Can we remove `var` and replace with class names? * use of streams/lambdas/collecting and in general anywhere we are now creating new objects when we could have avoided it. low level libraries should generally prefer for-loops and static classes. Can you review and avoid using stream methods and allocating new objects where possible? Please give me a heads-up in advance before refactoring more library code. With the above changes I will merge this, but frankly I don't see a big benefit given the risk. If we had more comprehensive test coverage I would feel better about the risk.
kris commented 4 years ago
Poster
  • Removing var (only String was replaced in 5ish places, so it was easy) - agree, sorry
  • stream/lambda/collect is used just in 1 place - method prefix(Collection<String>). In master (current version) following is used transform(keys, o -> prefix(o.toString())) - so lambda is there also. I did some perfomance test on this, and the new solution worked 2x faster at least on collections with 10.000 Strings. Please confirm you really want apache’s transform method back. Or maybe to just change all this and use plain for loop with another collection created as output?
- Removing var (only String was replaced in 5ish places, so it was easy) - agree, sorry - stream/lambda/collect is used just in 1 place - method `prefix(Collection<String>)`. In master (current version) following is used `transform(keys, o -> prefix(o.toString()))` - so lambda is there also. I did some perfomance test on this, and the new solution worked 2x faster at least on collections with 10.000 Strings. Please confirm you really want apache's transform method back. Or maybe to just change all this and use plain for loop with another collection created as output?
jonathan closed this pull request 4 years ago
jonathan deleted branch kris/refactor_redis_service 4 years ago
The pull request has been merged as 5d199cbd98.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No Label
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This pull request currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.