Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=OF11AS714qAx8hatOkudHy6+Djr5FXUXhJnD6lN2C/t4RF37D3gr85KF4EqCePFvk+
         9/Udh/JbFpSqIK8dtmRo9hiXIBTiUQLIhVcl2GakFAlOzrlxBUn5YfA+K6H6Q8ThZ5i3
         cRI46MhCUISVTUMsESpXVvRl0mIzibw+0PkZY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik51UN3OVBfeXM5TKNncuYvOQq4yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=QDytZ_uPFL4Lv0Eri=JprM_Waug@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTindQr_CA9jx7cC1cJRV+s3Z1u7Phw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTimAD8E4XUawSNXHNNky7xJa6SxPCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinvVbZix+A-88=C8X1n8NfFLwEo=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinrm=+AfPzREgoLpK_YLFK2HwA3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikgtynw7nScXWFXS_bQJGdnBM3sqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTik51UN3OVBfeXM5TKNncuYvOQq4yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:29:40 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=RkpKZB3zKvY2DY8meFsT89Rr0kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: lost ZK events across datacenters
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547ca8b31a17b04a4aee6ad

--bcaec547ca8b31a17b04a4aee6ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

True.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm sure there are cases where an incorrect retry is bad, but for at least
> some use cases it is a trivial aspect of correctness and a worthwhile
> tradeoff in terms of app simplicity.
>
> C
>  On Jun 1, 2011 7:22 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is exactly the part of zkClient that I think is most subject to
> error
> > and is what I meant by inappropriate hiding of details.
> >
> > You can't just assume that you can retry an operation on Zookeeper and
> get
> > the right result. The correct handling is considerably more subtle.
> Hiding
> > that is not a good thing unless you say right up front that you are
> > compromising either expressivity (as does Kept Collections) or
> correctness
> > (as does zkClient).
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The most important feature that I rely zkclient on is to hide
> >> zkConnectionLoss exception (just block and retry when connection is in
> sync
> >> mode again). I assume that quite a few applications want something like
> >> that. Does it make sense for ZK to provide such functionality directly,
> >> instead of everyone implementing their own stuff?
> >>
>

--bcaec547ca8b31a17b04a4aee6ad--