-Re: Error in zookeeper recipes documention of " Leader Election"
Yeah this has been a known issue for a while. I'll create a patch for it.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Ishaaq Chandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I mentioned this over a year and a half ago: -
> http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/leader-election-td6086870.html -
> looks like it still hasn't been rectified.
> On 11 September 2012 11:13, nileader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> About “Leader Election”part of zookeeper recipes documention(
>> of my colleagues are confused on this: "Otherwise, watch for changes on
>> "ELECTION/guid-n_j", where j is the smallest sequence number such that j <
>> i and n_j is a znode in C;"
>> In my course, I tell them that in this using case， just watch the node
>> that only smaller than you, And the meaning of the expression here is
>> I think the document is error。
>> *nileader* ni掌櫃的個人郵箱
>> *MSN*： [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
>> privileged, private information of correct recipient and nileader. If you
>> received this email in error, please delete it immediately and do not copy
>> it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person.
>> Thank you.
>> 2012/9/8 Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > As I was implementing read-only mode in the Python client based on the
>> > Java client patch, I noticed a rather odd naming for the error you get if
>> > you send a modification command to a read-only
>> > server...NotReadOnlyException.
>> > Why the sudden change in error context?
>> > For reference, here's some of the other errors that Zookeeper may return
>> > when making an API call:
>> > NoNode
>> > NoAuth
>> > BadVersion
>> > NoChildrenForEphemerals
>> > NodeExists
>> > NotEmpty
>> > So the explanation for these errors are consistent, "your API call cannot
>> > be completed because of this state on the server". Personally, I'm a huge
>> > fan of consistency in an API, so these are all great. But then with
>> > NotReadOnly, we have an error that is not referring to the state of the
>> > server (that it *is* ReadOnly), but one that refers to the semantics of
>> > API call itself. Given all the other errors, I was really expecting the
>> > server to throw a ReadOnly error indicating your call cannot be completed
>> > due to that state on the server (like the others).
>> > Was there a reason for the context switch in error naming? I understand
>> > given its been merged in for almost 2 years now that there's unlikely to
>> > any switch to make it consistent in context with the other errors, but it
>> > might be nice for future feature additions to try and document or enforce
>> > better consistency in the API.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ben