Manno15 commented on pull request #1958: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1958#issuecomment-792948215
After doing more investigating, I am leaning towards the side of keeping the use of `ZooQueueLock` as is and not trying to refactor it to use `ZooLock`. Instead, I'd rather alter the validation and sorting process of the locks. In `AdminUtil` (which is called from the Fate Print command) we call `ZooLock.validateAndSortChildrenByLockPrefix`. This expects the lock prefix to only be zLock which is where the warning is coming from. If the goal of this function is just to validate and sort the locks then I think broadening its use case by accepting different lock prefixes can solve this issue while not forcing every lock to look like ZooLocks. I would do this by moving out this function into a utility class or in its own class. Then, whichever class needs to validate/sort locks can call it and either pass in the expected lock prefix or pull from a list of valid ones. This is under the assumption that we want to keep other lock classes like `ZooQueueLock`/`DistributedReadWriteLock` (wh ich can have different prefixes) and not convert everything to `ZooLock`. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
