[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-270?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13284864#comment-13284864
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-270:
---------------------------------------------
I understand that it would be best to treat bookies as black boxes. However, I
couldn't think of a good way of saying precisely the cases we cover (and I
don't claim my description is currently precise enough) without giving some
detail about the implementation. I'm fine with hiding internal detail, but I'm
not ok with not being precise about the cases we cover. If you can think of a
better way, I'll be happy to hear.
> Review documentation on bookie cookie
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-270
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-270
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Flavio Junqueira
> Assignee: Flavio Junqueira
> Fix For: 4.1.0
>
> Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-270.patch, BOOKKEEPER-270.patch
>
>
> Check BOOKKEEPER-163.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
