On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@yakaz.com> wrote: >> But otherwise, the discrepancy between code and comments suggests that the >> code was changed. If so, what was the rational behind the change ? > > I'm guessing you're reading the 0.4 source? This has been cleaned up > in trunk. At least I'm pretty sure it has, because I remember the > comments you're referring to, and I don't see them anymore. :)
Well, I just checkout from svn (svn checkout https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/trunk cassandra) to be sure, the NEWS.txt and CHANGES.txt corroborate that it's 0.5dev. Still, the comment for weakReadRemote starts with "Read the data from one replica. If there is no reply, read the data from another." and the one for weakReadLocal starts with "This function executes the read protocol locally and should be used only if consistency is not a concern. Read the data from the local disk and return if the row is NOT NULL. If the data is NULL do the read from one of the other replicas (in the same data center if possible) till we get the data." In any case, at least for readRemote, why when the "suitableEndpoint" timeout another node is not tried ? > -Jonathan >
