Skip to content

Full editing pass for Spring Data Redis #331

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
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Buzzardo
Copy link

I edited for spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and cross-references. I also pulled one piece of content that was being reused into its own file, so that I could include it rather than repeat it.

I edited for spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and cross-references. I also pulled one piece of content that was being reused into its own file, so that I could include it rather than repeat it.
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented May 4, 2018

Related ticket: https://jira.spring.io/browse/DATAREDIS-825

Copy link
Member

@mp911de mp911de left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll move forward and add a polishing commit after merging the pull request. Thanks a lot!

:revnumber: {version}
:revdate: {localdate}
:toc:
:toc-placement!:
:toc: left
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Leaving out this change until we have all modules polished up so we can apply TOC placement for all modules in almost a single shot.


To help with the asynch manner of messages, the container requires a `java.util.concurrent.Executor` ( or Spring's `TaskExecutor`) for dispatching the messages. Depending on the load, the number of listeners or the runtime environment, one should change or tweak the executor to better serve her needs - in particular in managed environments (such as app servers), it is highly recommended to pick a a proper `TaskExecutor` to take advantage of its runtime.
To help with the asynchronous nature of messages, the container requires a `java.util.concurrent.Executor` ( or Spring's `TaskExecutor`) for dispatching the messages. Depending on the load, the number of listeners, or the runtime environment, you should change or tweak the executor to better serve your needs. In particular, in managed environments (such as app servers), it is highly recommended to pick a proper `TaskExecutor` to take advantage of its runtime.
// TODO How can one know which is "proper"?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Regarding the TODO: The proper aspect comes from the context in which components are used. We assume that users of app servers are aware of their runtime and the threading facilities it provides.

mp911de pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
I edited for spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and cross-references. I also pulled one piece of content that was being reused into its own file, so that I could include it rather than repeat it.

Original pull request: #331.
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
Fix typos. Remove redundant mention of JDK requirements.

Original pull request: #331.
mp911de pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
I edited for spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and cross-references. I also pulled one piece of content that was being reused into its own file, so that I could include it rather than repeat it.

Original pull request: #331.
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
Fix typos. Remove redundant mention of JDK requirements.

Original pull request: #331.
mp911de pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
I edited for spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and cross-references. I also pulled one piece of content that was being reused into its own file, so that I could include it rather than repeat it.

Original pull request: #331.
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2018
Fix typos. Remove redundant mention of JDK requirements.

Original pull request: #331.
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented May 4, 2018

That's merged and backported now.

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.

2 participants