[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-162?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13203383#comment-13203383
]
Sijie Guo commented on BOOKKEEPER-162:
--------------------------------------
hmm, I think it would be better to add more documents in readLastConfirmed to
tell the difference between readLastConfirmed and getLastAddConfirmed.
otherwise the different return value would make user confused.
> LedgerHandle.readLastConfirmed does not work
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-162
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-162
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: bookkeeper-client
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0
> Reporter: Philipp Sushkin
> Assignee: Flavio Junqueira
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.1.0
>
> Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-162.patch, BOOKKEEPER-162.patch,
> BOOKKEEPER-162.patch, BookieReadWriteTest.java.patch,
> BookieReadWriteTest.java.patch, BookieReadWriteTest.java.patch, bookkeeper.log
>
>
> Two bookkeeper clients.
> 1st continuously writing to ledger X.
> 2nd (bk.openLedgerNoRecovery) polling ledger X for new entries and reading
> them.
> In response we always reveiceing 0 as last confirmed entry id (in fact we are
> receiving -1 from each bookie RecoveryData but then in ReadLastConfirmedOp,
> but uninitialized "long maxAddConfirmed;" takes priority in Math.max(...).
> Main question - is given scenario is expected to work at all?
--
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
