[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-164?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14505793#comment-14505793
]
Mike Drob commented on CURATOR-164:
-----------------------------------
The JVM has been pretty good about biased locking in recent years, so if
there's no contention over the sync block that it is only very slightly slower
than not having the sync block at all. I'll take a look at your changes in more
detail later, but my first impression is that the complexity is much higher. I
don't know what kind of performance requirements we have on this chunk, but
reconnect code has never struck me as a critical section. I'd favor clarity and
maintainability here, if given the choice.
> curator-x-discovery: unregisterService is not guaranteed to remove the
> service, due to reconnectListener concurrency issue
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CURATOR-164
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-164
> Project: Apache Curator
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Framework
> Affects Versions: 2.7.0
> Reporter: Rasmus Berg Palm
> Assignee: Jordan Zimmerman
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 2.8.0
>
>
> In ServiceDiscoveryImpl:
> When unregistering a service, the reconnect listener might fire while
> deleting the path.
> This can cause a condition where the delete finishes successfully, the
> service is removed from services, and then the reRegisterServices completes
> successfully and the service is added back in ZK and in services, end result
> being that the service was not removed, even though unregisterService did not
> throw any exceptions.
> Essentially the use of the internal 'services' cache makes for a nightmare of
> concurrency issues. I put this as critical as the library it's really not
> usable IMO.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
