Return-Path: 
 <user-return-7633-apmail-zookeeper-user-archive=zookeeper.apache.org@zookeeper.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 21072110F7
	for <apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  6 Jun 2014 08:12:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 16935 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2014 08:12:38 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16867 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2014 08:12:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.zookeeper.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16856 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jun 2014 08:12:38 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:12:38 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mudit.f2004912@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.212.181] (HELO mail-wi0-f181.google.com)
 (209.85.212.181)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:12:34 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id n15so484041wiw.2
        for <user@zookeeper.apache.org>; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :message-id:references:to;
        bh=rPwDXTaRnlSSZWzVcy/AiTcXtW6WE4WV71VA4WNj6Hc=;
        b=zsSd9wTd6McVSshc38MdVyMDMr99ihzDFb3DsCE2bURcrVnqywDBrD3TaTbqjIjKVg
         V2sWm/i/XRYaBQVGhOCbqenp/RlqluRmk2N6O22Pcar5ICu8ScAuuYkzIDm1iYpKCu/Y
         XrY6Iij54Yv+rZRSdUVYOJBKV0CXbyrmknmY4XqmLJ7IvZ9IEdS2eWp00UJCU8y76CL4
         nduc5nxt7M5vWejKB46R5jpOZUVlh+RnSVWZXjcYeB5p8tQAN9eTiV+WUQ0GQiUszuwh
         kvNG7PwjHVZi/vc/gX0y4B6S8f3pQv4GQkIZ0cQsBDkJ9j0EPKD/044StOBwJjF/6ouT
         0nAQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.179.73 with SMTP id g49mr26676eem.18.1402042330969;
        Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.8.56] (gw1.scality.com. [149.6.166.202])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
 j8sm21175475eey.12.2014.06.06.01.12.09
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_F3E97485-C199-4EA6-925E-F568CAE22299"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Asynchronous API's and monotonicity
From: Mudit Verma <mudit.f2004912@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPd04b5h_Vmq6=w7wYv8nOphjVQrr98SxvXkxKJPoWejfUGu7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:12:06 +0200
Cc: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Message-Id: <8BA266F0-4A62-4550-B5A5-BB791198BE72@gmail.com>
References: <5309FE79-A579-4604-A82C-EF993AFD8459@gmail.com>
 <CAHB_t6qSh31pX3rXvN2mjBNS0Ak09qspdgcmie079jEvnEqanQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPd04b5h_Vmq6=w7wYv8nOphjVQrr98SxvXkxKJPoWejfUGu7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@highwire.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--Apple-Mail=_F3E97485-C199-4EA6-925E-F568CAE22299
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

Thanks James and Rakesh. It helps :)

On 05 Jun 2014, at 21:07, James A. Robinson <jimr@highwire.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan =
<rakeshr.apache@gmail.com> wrote:
> But this behaviour may not be same if we perform operations through
> different clients. Here network delays or other factors may cause =
different
> clients to see a change.
>=20
> I'm assuming the other important factor is to ensure that he's
> either got a single control loop dispatching the async calls to
> his zookeeper connection or that he's coordinating the threads
> himself to impose ordering.
>=20
> Otherwise, if one has threads x1 and x2 running in parallel,
> he'd have no guarantee which thread dispatched its async
> call to zookeeper first.
>=20
> Jim
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_F3E97485-C199-4EA6-925E-F568CAE22299--