Re: setACL semantics

2009-02-10 Thread Manos Kapritsos
More or less, yes. If the requests are from the same client, then you say that there will not be a problem? I guess that is true if you always wait for the response of the first request in order to execute the second. I am not sure if that is a requirement for all Zookeeper client

Re: setACL semantics

2009-02-10 Thread Patrick Hunt
Mahadev, is it true that a lagging follower, participating in the ensemble but not part of the quorum, would continue to respond to read requests until it had received/processed the update from the leader? Patrick Mahadev Konar wrote: HI Manos, The accepting of a txn for being processed

Re: setACL semantics

2009-02-10 Thread Mahadev Konar
Yes that is true. mahadev On 2/10/09 4:54 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: Mahadev, is it true that a lagging follower, participating in the ensemble but not part of the quorum, would continue to respond to read requests until it had received/processed the update from the leader?

RE: setACL semantics

2009-02-10 Thread Benjamin Reed
To: zookeeper-dev@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: setACL semantics More or less, yes. If the requests are from the same client, then you say that there will not be a problem? I guess that is true if you always wait for the response of the first request in order to execute the second. I am not sure

Re: setACL semantics

2009-02-10 Thread Manos Kapritsos
: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:34 PM To: zookeeper-dev@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: setACL semantics More or less, yes. If the requests are from the same client, then you say that there will not be a problem? I guess that is true if you always wait for the response of the first request in order