zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: need for more conditional write support
Date Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:50:11 GMT
Well, I would just call the first method set.

And I think that the second method is no easier to implement and probably a
bit less useful.

The idea that the second might be almost as useful as the first is
interesting however.  It probably
means that we should allow some of the data elements to be null or something
to allow for testing
versions but not setting data.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Qian Ye <yeqian.zju@gmail.com> wrote:

> zoo_multi_test_and_set(List<int> versions, List<string> znodes,
> List<byte[]> data)
> can solve the problem I mentioned before, and some relavant issues, like
> hard for programmers to use, as mentioned in mail-archive, should be paid
> attention to. I think we can move small step first, that is, provide
> interface like
> zoo_multi_test_and_set(List<int> versions, List<string> znodes, byte[]
> data, string znode)
> The API test versions of several different znodes before set one znode, and
> if the client want to set other znode, it can call this API repeatedly.
> Because we only set one node by this API, the result will be straight,
> success or failure. We need not take care of the half-success result.
> How do ur guys think about this API?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message