Github user phunt commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/525
These are useful fixes. However one of the burdens of recommending such a
fix is to also prove that the fix really addresses the issue, rather than just
moving the problem somewhere else. In particular it would be good if the
description of this fix (and any such fix) included details on whether all of
the callers to addCnxn handle the new error handling code properly. In this
case throwing the IOException in addCnxn. "some of their callers have !=null
check but some do not have" One of the things any committer will need to do is
also verify, and having this thought out ahead of time will help.
Another thing - are the null checks in the caller code still necessary?
Should they be removed? If yes any such patch should include changes there as
well.
---
