Mailing-List: contact dev-help@curator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@curator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.55f64f78.513ddd7a.42a@Jordans-MacBook-Pro.local>
References: <etPan.55f5fad5.4de96b5f.42a@Jordans-MacBook-Pro.local>
	<CANykdubmugVDcp696wX=nRRfMaY3fefDYg=8nsody22rKZr7+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<etPan.55f64f78.513ddd7a.42a@Jordans-MacBook-Pro.local>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:42:02 +1000
Message-ID: 
 <CANykduZKYHX2Vc0pdf+xCK4NQEnxnL-wiWrsXQ8TCPpo1xtJSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DEVS PLEASE READ: What is the correct timeout for a session
From: Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
To: "dev@curator.apache.org" <dev@curator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d4264c416d3051fadaf55

--001a114d4264c416d3051fadaf55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good point, either way it probably needs to be documented, as it would
probably be confusing to get a session loss event from Curator and then
manage to reconnect to ZK and still find all your sessions ephemeral nodes
present.

I presume it's not possible to get a hook into the acknowledgement of an
event from ZK? We could use that as the start of the session timeout timer.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> Not sure if this is an issue or not. It's better that Curator declares a
> session lost a bit later than a bit earlier than ZK.
> Actually, I was thinking it would be better if Curator declares lost
> before ZK does. The idea is to wait until the last moment to stop locks,
> etc. But, users would still want to not have two processes thinking they
> own the same lock. I wonder if we need to add a =E2=80=9Cfudge factor=E2=
=80=9D of some kind
> so that Curator fakes the session loss a bit before the negotiated sessio=
n
> timeout elapses.
>
>
>
> -JZ
>
>

--001a114d4264c416d3051fadaf55--