I don’t understand your need. Any ZooKeeper API call requires a connection. Are 
you saying you don’t want to retry on certain calls? Add a Connection State 
listener and keep track of the state. Don’t call exists() if the state isn’t 
CONNECTED/RECONNECTED. You could even write a custom retry policy that does 
this internally. Another possibility is to have a 2nd Curator instance with a 
different retry policy. Lastly, we could add a method to change the retry 
policy.

-JZ

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 9:27 AM, pratap k <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jordan,
> 
> We don't want asynchronous calls, as we need immediately what is the result 
> of the operation.Basically, I am looking for the method calls ( like 
> checkExists)  to return immediately or have a different retry policy other 
> than connection retry.
> 
> Basically, by using same retry policy for connection retry and the method 
> retry, the application threads are getting impacted with the connection retry 
> policy. For ex: if  Exponentional Backoff policy is mentioned, there is a 
> chance of method call being blocked indefinately if zookeeper server goes 
> down. 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Pratap
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 5:46 PM, Jordan Zimmerman 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Perform the operations in the background. E.g.
> 
> client.create().inBackground().forPath(p);
> 
>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 6:23 AM, pratap k <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> We are using Curator Framework with exponential backoff retry policy, 
>> assuming that the retry policy is specific to connection retry logic. But, 
>> when the zookeeper is down, the transaction method calls ( like create, 
>> getData, create) are blocking. 
>> CuratorFrameworkFactory.newClient(zookeeperConnectionString, retryPolicy)
>> 
>> We don't want to block the application threads when the zookeeper is not 
>> available, But don't want to change the connection retry policy.
>> Is there anyway we can do this ?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Pratap
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to