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 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com designates
 10.182.12.74 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.182.12.74;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9D6A630B-92C0-4D27-A5DA-FA41E32BD5A1@gmail.com>
References: <B51B153D-6179-44C4-901B-A985C1038386@gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9+0izMWc8sV7TnxwAHA_vq_daXPfjhc6uovq267u86d=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <E2E85F7B-7F69-4080-8393-7FA0CC4773AD@gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9JVxE5ryDF49W8b860R7kcz7QD8w_uoqXhSS2LVL57sMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D6A630B-92C0-4D27-A5DA-FA41E32BD5A1@gmail.com>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:52:19 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAJwFCa1tC1=TgWyUwBB0ZuO3hn56h=EQVjAMvL65PgJyS26DYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting data after the watch
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Cc: Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044468db96e82204ba4a6ff5

--f46d044468db96e82204ba4a6ff5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I don't think that your test tests what you think it tests.

You won't necessarily get a notification every time a value changes.  If a
value changes and a watch is queued, you won't get another notification
until you get the data and set the new watch.  If another change happens
before you reset the watch, you will get the second changed value, not the
first.  With your test, you will see a skipped value in your table and
conclude that you saw an old value twice.  The correct inference is that
you saw every value exactly once except the skipped one.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Amirhossein Kiani <amirhkiani@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hmm... I tried testing the idea that if I call the getData() on updated
> node in the watcher's process() method I'll get the updated data.
> I created a watcher class that keeps track of the values it's receiving
> and in my test I sequentially set 10000 values on the node. I do see that
> some times I'm getting the OLD VALUE.
>
> I wonder if the way I'm setting the data or getting it is incorrect.
>
> Here are the main files in my test:
> https://gist.github.com/1961660
>
> You can run my test by running "mvn test" in the maven project attached.
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your help!
> Amir
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Amirhossein Kiani <amirhkiani@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Many thanks Patrick for pointing me to the new documentation. I just found
> the other one from Google somehow.
>
>
>
> No problem.
>
> So what I think is happening is actually impossible: to do getData() on a
> node and see the OLD data. in other words, I do not need to loop on a
> getData() to get the actual new data after being notified about the data
> change.
>
> The reason that I'm saying that is that's the behavior I'm seeing in my
> code, but it might be just a bug on my side...
>
>
> Sounds like. Keep in mind that there might be multiple changes btw the
> time the notification fires and when your getData runs on the server.
> Perhaps someone's changing it back? :-)
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>

--f46d044468db96e82204ba4a6ff5--