Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper, mail # dev - async multi requests in the Java client


Copy link to this message
-
Re: async multi requests in the Java client
Marshall McMullen 2013-02-01, 22:04
As far as I know it was not intentional.

My best guess here is that is was due to different people working on
different parts of Multi. Ted did the original Java client work but didn't
have the time to do the C client work and my company really needed that
functionality so I volunteered to implement it. We never discussed the
async interface. I only implemented it because the C client necessitates
it. All of the synchronous interfaces are just wrappers around the
asynchronous ones.

I think this was definitely an oversight. At a minimum it seems during the
many code reviews the Multi code got this should have been noticed..
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thawan's followup on that ticket pointed me to this open issue:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1572
>
> So that resolves it, which is great.
> My general call-out on divergent functionality away from the Java client
> stands for future reference but looks like we're good for this one.
>
> C
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone jog my memory about why we didn't implement multi requests
> with
> > async callbacks for the Java client like we did in the C client?
> > I think it's not a great precedent to set because now we have bugs that
> > have been discovered in the implementation of multi on the server side
> that
> > are easily reproducible only via the C client, see:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1624
> >
> >
> > Multi was a big project so I can understand why we let this go for the
> > first impl, but unless there's a technical reason not to support it in
> the
> > Java client it would be a good fix for us to put it in there as well,
> > especially in light of this issue.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > C
> >
> >
> >
>