From user-return-6335-apmail-zookeeper-user-archive=zookeeper.apache.org@zookeeper.apache.org Wed May 15 20:08:38 2013 Return-Path: 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 9E50DD230 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 20:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58543 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2013 20:08:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 58516 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2013 20:08:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 58498 invoked by uid 99); 15 May 2013 20:08:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 20:08:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.220.43] (HELO mail-pa0-f43.google.com) (209.85.220.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 20:08:32 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz10so1843800pad.16 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:07:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=Lt0lffjFojUfEG78zZcHKzCZVUZ8ulX5/ljKEggI6DE=; b=QLGNwk3zBatjdmUhGBmQ+pm4GeYFpwD4d+CVAtLRlnRSd62BkfkzYdhOKUoy0l+8PU Cw/bH666QdA3tU+RJB1G+gcIB4PHGJVuZ4pA9v2RX9qQyb2KwLScOi3py0UvB4Bwgq0C 9Z1xbA1hJDyp0klaxoqEX6zjgpQKgT9cuXOuwoowq56fw8AF59L0sr9Y4pbF0SvpM1tF zv3QsW+cMixZpvGHn0ekxeWZa37zoXsToi/tB0l29/dB52X+3BfZspN9GoIRF/68uyJm HmeW32e+hTdXFeMpFEoo6tZlgIh/f3+3vG1ucL01ooZdVi6LrQ5k+eZ8NbgYaDySytBx bVfw== X-Received: by 10.68.95.101 with SMTP id dj5mr9825664pbb.100.1368648472309; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb10:2:244:c01a:2435:5100:d668? ([2607:fb10:2:244:c01a:2435:5100:d668]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kv2sm3877063pbc.28.2013.05.15.13.07.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 13:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] recipes package From: Jordan Zimmerman In-Reply-To: <059b01ce5199$8ae654c0$a0b2fe40$@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:07:48 -0700 Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <059b01ce5199$8ae654c0$a0b2fe40$@yahoo.com> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQliHP41loRwVOVhobZgJ5ndcwzSF2n8I+Gx4k1JfzWEZo5fHL05DZdGb7mXz4MR31Uw0m3D X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org My concern with the bundled recipes is whether or not they are = maintained. As long as they contain the current best practices and edge = case handling then they are good to have. I haven't looked at them = recently to know is this is accurate or not. For example, a year or so = ago the bundled lock recipe did not correctly handle the = persistent/ephemeral node edge case correctly. -Jordan On May 15, 2013, at 11:25 AM, "FPJ" wrote: > With Curator, I was wondering if it makes sense to maintain the = recipes > package. How do people feel about it? Should we keep it or consider > deprecating it? >=20 >=20 >=20 > -Flavio >=20