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

Switch to Plain View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> multi() and getData()


+
Ted Yu 2012-03-07, 06:10
+
Marshall McMullen 2012-03-07, 06:17
+
Ted Dunning 2012-03-07, 06:41
+
Ted Yu 2012-03-07, 16:06
+
Ted Yu 2012-03-08, 22:39
+
Ted Dunning 2012-03-08, 22:52
+
Ted Yu 2012-03-08, 23:54
+
Ted Dunning 2012-03-09, 00:10
+
Marshall McMullen 2012-03-09, 00:20
+
Ted Yu 2012-03-09, 00:34
+
Marshall McMullen 2012-03-09, 00:47
Copy link to this message
-
Re: multi() and getData()
I created ZOOKEEPER-1410 for C client as sub-task of 1407.

Let me try adding support for GetChildren.

I may need some advice on adding unit test.

Cheers

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Marshall McMullen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So as to avoid not holding up your very appreciated work on 1407, how about
> you create a separate jira case to add support to the C client for
> supporting GetData in a Multi.
>
> Perhaps GetChildren should be captured as another jira case as well since
> you didn't handle that in your patch. Up to you...
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I re-attached patch according to Ted's feedback.
> >
> > I am just trying to help push this issue forward.
> > As Marshall pointed out, it would take sometime for me to handle the
> > changes in C client.
> > So I am willing to let Marshall or someone else take over.
> >
> > Before that happens, I will continue on
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4264/
> > .
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Marshall McMullen <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously this patch also neglected to add support to the C client
> > (though
> > > honestly that's a lot harder than the java side). If you don't plan to
> do
> > > the C client, then I can pick up that work.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks like a cut and paste error in the first line of the GetData
> > > > constructor:
> > > >
> > > > +          super(ZooDefs.OpCode.setData, path);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you meant ZooDefs.OpCode.getData here?
> > > >
> > > > The check for permissions also seems wrong here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +              checkACL(zks, nodeRecord.acl, ZooDefs.Perms.WRITE,
> > > > request.authInfo);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as really reviewing this, it would really help to have it in
> > > > reviewboard instead of just reading a diff.
> > > >
> > > > Also, this only seems to handle getData and doesn't seem to include
> any
> > > > tests.  Is the omission of getChildren intentional?  Do you plan to
> > have
> > > > tests?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Please take a look at the patch I attached to ZOOKEEPER-1407.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should be straightforward.  There are just a number of places
> to
> > > > > touch.
> > > > > >  You need a factory in Op, a sub-class to hold the transaction,
> > then
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > server side there are 2-4 switch statements that need to be
> > > inspected.
> > > > > >  Marshal can comment whether the commit code needs change, but I
> > > would
> > > > > > expect it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are GetDataRequest / GetDataResponse in
> src/zookeeper.jute
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would the new GetDataTxn be able to reuse them ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1407 has
> been
> > > > > logged.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Ted Dunning <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> The use cases that I came up with for multi all involved
> reads
> > > > done
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > >> multiple writes as with a read-modify-write operation.  In
> > that
> > > > > case,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> reads need to be done before the updates.  Those use cases
> > > > motivated
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> Check operation so that you can ensure that nothing has