Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: Zookeeper with SSL release date
To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
References: <0454CD1B-9018-4D5F-A376-CD29525FF87B@apache.org>
 <CANLc_9+L7EF+F+GTA5qu9rGqKoXtBYFi=u-bg4sD3W-s4MxmBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANcXBFM2nrLVEbTXoqTjKQ1vCs2oEcYSq+5WpRYFa30PSHLLaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9KnvDgmKHF02f_s0qsB8j=GrC5sqZkwW1U__VtoFaaxiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANcXBFPzD5rgkuqPvH0sZ_T33J7L7s0VPuhv_whXve8ssWgUjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9++sRKWp2pzJzeOLMi9ewfM2UGsax2dMkF-bpcXkvQbXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANcXBFPSbczPnTZryCo51onVbeqQgsaR0ec1aPnJmD5m2nSGUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA+BczRetxe-+M_FwL-qWw1euwTbZKfYbWr9BRZfxhGfeRa_gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANcXBFOWP5rRYGW8cTztsgd3kxX-OosehjzpF9QKYjROGi4kRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <58E62111-0064-4291-B376-D40FFCFFF2A9@apache.org>
 <CANcXBFOqJv_hrCaaokYJ8ccfjO6SDzujFNwsvH7YkQCtXe-62w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA+BczTxzN+pYDqNuEEe50HN1_758E=wciJ99rdYsGqi+za8Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANcXBFMsEvLjtXsP5YUHUyobn+tgxiJHLBTTHm8Aqj7fn_0a=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <56FEACD1.305@elyograg.org>
 <CANcXBFP36_qBkGkRuJNBQi9KgyfiUkYD=-gAmSKFbWc=_dUqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shawn Heisey <apache@elyograg.org>
Message-ID: <56FEC6DA.5080601@elyograg.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:07:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANcXBFP36_qBkGkRuJNBQi9KgyfiUkYD=-gAmSKFbWc=_dUqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/1/2016 12:32 PM, Alexander Shraer wrote:
> I think we have some flexibility here since reconfig is a new feature so we
> could
> choose to be concervative and release it first only to people that do use
> ACLs, but
> I don't feel strongly about it, either way.

I have no standing in this project, but if I did, I'd fight that
proposal.  I might lose, but that wouldn't stop me from trying.  ACLs
are a nice option, but I think they need to *remain* an option.

If I'm using feature Y, and feature X is not intimately related in a way
that cannot be separated, X should *not* be required to use Y, or
vice-versa.  I can't think of any good reason to require ACL enforcement
before allowing dynamic ensemble membership.

Is there some aspect of this that I'm missing?  That could be the case. 
I'm not deeply familiar with ZK, and even less with 3.5.

Thanks,
Shawn