Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6146868A-0AE7-4678-AF8A-5EC97366CC78@yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAAJovYZHVADOSF-j29ERHUGj5PWfD1iD2sf_dH9zCXfoi2tJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAJovYaa5RNTsdREoAiDsgiDW6SG6S7=eAy22okEUH=gfoydWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6146868A-0AE7-4678-AF8A-5EC97366CC78@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:29:35 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAAJovYbUjWcQWcZo38=vmxK6ScNvxhnJWNeHRNSn_Yu5rvuCHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Get_children after create
From: Robert Rosolek <rrosolek@janestreet.com>
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec91604dc0a051e5d66dd

--001a113ec91604dc0a051e5d66dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I have found out what was causing the problem and, unsurprisingly, the bug
was on our side. Thank you for your help.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Flavio Junqueira <
fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> If it is the same client that created the znode, then yes, it does read
> its own writes. A different client may not read it immediately because we
> propagate updates agreed upon to the replicas asynchronously. You could
> watch the parents for changes, though, and have the client being notified
> when the newly created child becomes visible for that client.
>
> -Flavio
>
> > On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:08, Robert Rosolek <rrosolek@janestreet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify more: in my program no-one is deleting this node in the
> > meantime. Also the state of the zookeeper session is Connected all the
> time.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Robert Rosolek <
> rrosolek@janestreet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry if this question was asked here before, but I couldn't find the
> >> search functionality in the archives.
> >>
> >> My question is the following: after create operation is successful, am I
> >> guaranteed to
> >> see the new child when doing get_children on the parent? I have a
> program,
> >> that seems to be breaking because it makes this assumption. Looking at
> the
> >> lock recipe at
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/blob/trunk/src/recipes/lock/src/java/org/apache/zookeeper/recipes/lock/WriteLock.java
> ,
> >> it seems this code does *not* make this assumption and simply keeps
> >> retrying in a tight loop until it finds the child.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Robert
> >>
>
>

--001a113ec91604dc0a051e5d66dd--