Of course. I'll update the proposal (my copy - I'll resend when there are more comments).
-JZ On 12/15/11 1:24 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >That will be our responsibility once (if) this is accepted. > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jordan Zimmerman ><jzimmer...@netflix.com>wrote: > >> As long as the doc for the legacy recipes point ppl to the new >> implementations that would be fine. What should be avoided is someone >> casually looking at the docs and using the legacy version because he >> wasn't aware that there was a newer one. >> >> -JZ >> >> On 12/15/11 12:17 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>I thought that that would be confusing. My thinking is that most >>people >> >> are going to get ZooKeeper because they need to do X (locking, >>leader, >> >> etc.). They won't spend a lot of time learning the internals and will >> >>just >> >> search for the recipe they need. If they see two they'd be uncertain. >> >> >> > >> >This is what Javadoc is for. If one of the legacy recipes is >>distinctly >> >less good than a new one, we should document the distinction and give a >> >pointer in the javadoc. >> >>
