Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Odd_error_naming=85_NotReadOnly_when_the_?=
 =?windows-1252?Q?server_*is*_read-only?=
From: Ben Bangert <ben@groovie.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADZba-Tc05vUNpvWNUo1ZZsav+RqpTueGgJOQr2BDw67DWgM0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:47:46 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E4C51EDB-6EC2-42B2-B2D3-060F11BF1168@groovie.org>
References: <1ED7DCAA-3993-407C-AEAD-7F750E891C86@groovie.org>
 <CADZba-Tc05vUNpvWNUo1ZZsav+RqpTueGgJOQr2BDw67DWgM0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org

On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Henry Robinson <henry@cloudera.com> wrote:

> What do you think a good exception name would be? (Or do you think an
> exception is the wrong error path here?)

Given that the other errors all reflect what specifically is responsible =
for the error given the servers state, I was expecting an error like:
ServerIsReadOnly

Which clearly indicates the call failed because the server is read-only. =
The concept of "read-only commands" is kind of strange, which is what =
the current NotReadOnly exception refers to (the call itself is not a =
read-only call). ServerIsReadOnly fits into the current scheme of:
Command X failed due to condition Y on the server.

> My view is that the exception is badly named, and should indicate the
> actual error, like NodeNotWriteable or similar. It is, unfortunately, =
hard
> to make these changes in minor releases though, although I think we =
could
> consider it for 3.5.

Makes sense.

Cheers,
Ben=