>> Could we add some comments about that, to clarify the situation? I meant comments in javadoc or documentation.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you avoid replacing it though, then you are vulnerable to a another > >> bookie > in the ensemble slowing down. > > thinking a bit more about it. it is OK for me. > > >> Currently we guarentee b) but a) wouldn't be hard to do. We just have > to avoid removing PendingAddOps until the ackSet is complete. > > Could we add some comments about that, to clarify the situation? > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Currently we guarentee b) but a) wouldn't be hard to do. We just have >> to avoid removing PendingAddOps until the ackSet is complete. >> >> > >> > In general, I think avoiding replacing the slow bookie doesn't volatile >> the >> > contract provided by BookKeeper. >> If you avoid replacing it though, then you are vulnerable to a another >> bookie in the ensemble slowing down. >> >> -Ivan >> > >
