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

Write a DocumentWriteOperation using WriteHostBatcher #647

Closed
rjrudin opened this issue Jan 30, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Write a DocumentWriteOperation using WriteHostBatcher #647

rjrudin opened this issue Jan 30, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@rjrudin
Copy link
Contributor

rjrudin commented Jan 30, 2017

As a Java Client user
I want to (issue title)
So that I can write a library that abstracts whether WriteBatcher is used or just a DocumentManager so that either ML8 or ML9 can be used

  • I noticed that WriteBatcher, at least on master, does not have a method that takes a DocumentWriteOperation.
  • I think DocumentWriteOperation is one of the better features of the Java Client, since it encapsulates a write request in a single object. Could an add(DocumentWriteOperation) method be added to WriteBatcher?
@vivekmuniyandi
Copy link
Contributor

QA and Docs:

Have added an overload in WriteBatcher for adding a DocumentWriteOperation

WriteBatcher add(DocumentWriteOperation writeOperation);

@vivekmuniyandi
Copy link
Contributor

@georgeajit please assign to Srinath if he is the one responsible for DMSDK. I am not sure who is responsible. Hence I assigned it to you. Thanks.

georgeajit added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2018
@georgeajit georgeajit removed the test label Mar 28, 2018
@georgeajit
Copy link
Contributor

Assigning to Kim for documentation.

@kcoleman-marklogic
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think this needs additional documentation, beyond what's in the javadoc.

Rob said it is "one of the better features of the Java Client API", but I do not find it referenced ANYWHERE in the javadoc before 4.0.4. That is, it is not passed or returned in any public interface, other than the new overload added by this bug.

It feels almost like an internal interface that "leaked", which is fine, but it doesn't require extra emphasis in the dev guide, IMO.

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

No branches or pull requests

6 participants