Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

> On Aug 17, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jordan Zimmerman > wrote: > >> >> >> ... >>> I don't understand that. Watches can be set in a multi. >> >> Not in the public API: >>

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > > > ... > > I don't understand that. Watches can be set in a multi. > > Not in the public API: > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/blob/master/zookeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zookeeper/Op.java > - is it supported in the

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

> On Aug 17, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jordan Zimmerman > wrote: > Some thoughts: > > It doesn't really help with any of the "standard" recipes as they all need to > set watches. > > I don't understand

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jordan Zimmerman < jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > Some thoughts: > > It doesn't really help with any of the "standard" recipes as they all need > to set watches. I don't understand that. Watches can be set in a multi. > Not to open a can of worms, but if

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

Some thoughts: It doesn't really help with any of the "standard" recipes as they all need to set watches. Not to open a can of worms, but if there were a firehose version of watches that could be set independently, this type of multi-op could radically simplify some of the recipes. i.e. one

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 8:33 AM Michael Han wrote: > >> I would guess that it actually gets very, very little > > Can't speak for others, but for the zookeeper clusters I maintain > internally, multi was used extensively in certain use cases. > Cool! Very glad to hear it. >

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

Being lazy, I would suggest only the tests we already have. Existence and version. On Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 5:30 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il sab 17 ago 2019, 08:01 Ted Dunning ha scritto: > > > It definitely sounds like a nice feature. > > > > The important question is what is the actual

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

>> I would guess that it actually gets very, very little Can't speak for others, but for the zookeeper clusters I maintain internally, multi was used extensively in certain use cases. >> how much would an extension to multi actually be used This looks like a chicken egg problem to me. I feel

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

Il sab 17 ago 2019, 08:01 Ted Dunning ha scritto: > It definitely sounds like a nice feature. > > The important question is what is the actual importance after you multiply > it by the amount of usage it gets. > > For instance, I know that multi gets a bit of usage, but I would guess that > it

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

It definitely sounds like a nice feature. The important question is what is the actual importance after you multiply it by the amount of usage it gets. For instance, I know that multi gets a bit of usage, but I would guess that it actually gets very, very little. It might even most of the cases

Re: thoughts about extension to multi semantics

This sounds a nice feature to me as it enables user to do more without obvious downside. It could be useful in cases like state management where the state is stored in a fine grained approach across multiple zNode, instead of in a single zNode. On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:52 AM Ted Dunning wrote: