Github user skamille commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/136
Questions I have about this from a high level design perspective:
1. As I asked on the mailing list, have we done load/performance testing or
addressed what that might look like in the design? (Jordan to get back to us on
that)
2. I'm not sure I understand why persistent watches are both persistent and
always set for all children of a node. Is it not useful to imagine that I would
want a persistent watch on some node but not care about its children? Some
clarification on that choice would be helpful.
3. What does it really mean to guarantee sending of all watch events? What
are the implications for a disconnected client upon reconnect? How much do we
expect ZK to potentially be storing in order to be able to fulfill this
guarantee? Will this potentially cause unbounded memory overhead or lead to
full GC? Can we realistically bound this guarantee in order to provide the
other operational guarantees people expect from ZK such as generally
predictable memory usage based on size of data tree?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
