Mailing-List: contact dev-help@curator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@curator.apache.org
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Karthik Kumar (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@curator.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12690263.1390396350614.66852.1407877093692@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12690263.1390396350614@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12690263.1390396350614@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CURATOR-84) More flexibility for
 InterProcessMutex extensions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-84?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14094665#comment-14094665 ] 

Karthik Kumar commented on CURATOR-84:
--------------------------------------

I would love to see this change be considered for the next release!

> More flexibility for InterProcessMutex extensions
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CURATOR-84
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-84
>             Project: Apache Curator
>          Issue Type: Wish
>          Components: Recipes
>    Affects Versions: 2.3.0
>            Reporter: Jozef Vilcek
>         Attachments: CURATOR-84.patch
>
>
> I have a need for a durable InterProcessMutex. Main reason for this are processes with critical sections, where I can not afford to loose a lock due to session expiration. In such case, others might acquire a lock and kick in while the previous process is still running but e.g. experiencing connection issues. To kill this temporally detached process in favor of others would be too costly.
> To achieve such behavior, I need lock nodes to be created in PERSISTENT mode. This is not possible to do easily with currently implementation of locks due to few internal scoped classes and methods. I would like to change this.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)