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 mudit.f2004912@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
From: Mudit Verma <mudit.f2004912@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_D04DE2EF-9075-4B70-BB6E-9BCF02EF1CA0"
Message-Id: <8987A079-1D72-4ADC-8A76-B9F0C4C43EE3@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Watch: One time event -> Loss of event
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:43:08 +0200
References: <D7F9B433-16A9-4765-A584-9D71079F6F83@gmail.com>
 <005001cf8664$b697b180$23c71480$@yahoo.com>
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <005001cf8664$b697b180$23c71480$@yahoo.com>

--Apple-Mail=_D04DE2EF-9075-4B70-BB6E-9BCF02EF1CA0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

I don=92t think your solution will work. For example, somebody might =
change the data between you reading the data again for comparision and =
you setting the watch. You just can not gaurantee no operation will =
occur between reading and setting the watch, unless you use transactions =
(so that reading and setting the watch both go atomically).=20

Also, in your solution, I will have to keep the previous data for all =
znodes (where I want watches). That=92s like replicated everything =
locally as well.  =20

On 12 Jun 2014, at 07:35 pm, Flavio Junqueira =
<fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:

> =20


--Apple-Mail=_D04DE2EF-9075-4B70-BB6E-9BCF02EF1CA0--