Hi,

Thanks for your answers. The workaround is quite smart (thanks again!), but
on the long term, I would definitively prefer a simple API call. It would
be less environment dependent as well.

Do you want me to create a JIRA for it?

Cheers,

N.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1, that would be a good api addition.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Mahadev Konar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Keywal,
> >  Right now there isnt anyway for the client to tell which version of
> > server its talking to. You can probably hack something around the stat
> > command:
> >
> > echo stat | nc hostname clientport to get the version, but other than
> > that we dont have such an api. I think its probably worth having such
> > an api implemented.
> >
> > Here is the output of stat on my laptop:
> >
> > -----------------------
> > Zookeeper version: 3.4.2--1, built on 01/30/2012 17:43 GMT
> > Clients:
> >  /127.0.0.1:54951[0](queued=0,recved=1,sent=0)
> >
> > Latency min/avg/max: 0/0/0
> > Received: 1
> > Sent: 0
> > Outstanding: 0
> > Zxid: 0x500000001
> > Mode: follower
> > Node count: 7
> > --------------------
> >
> > thanks
> > mahadev
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM, N Keywal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> What's the recommended way for a client to get the version of the server
> >> it's connected to?
> >>
> >> I would like to write a (java) client that uses the "multi" function
> >> available since 3.4.x, with a fall-back implementation if the server is
> a
> >> 3.3. Or at the very least to check that the server is a 3.4+ before
> using
> >> "multi".
> >>
> >> I looked at the java client API but I didn't find a way to get this
> info.
> >>
> >> When the client uses "multi" when connected to a 3.3 server, it hangs (I
> >> was hoping for something like KeeperException.UnimplementedException,
> but
> >> it's not the case).
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for your help,
> >>
> >> N.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mahadev Konar
> > Hortonworks Inc.
> > http://hortonworks.com/
>

Reply via email to