Even if it did (I don't actually know), I'd be nervous about having that kind of dependency in my app. What's the reason you need this?
-JZ On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM, David Nickerson < [email protected]> wrote: > Is there any guarantee of order? For example, does the default watcher > receive the notification first? > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When the ZK disconnects/synconnects/expires all the watchers will get the > > notifications. I think, you should have the KeeperState checks in the > > respctive watchers and can do the thread handling logics. > > ________________________________________ > > From: David Nickerson [[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:20 PM > > To: ZooKeeper mailing list > > Subject: Dealing with an expired session > > > > In my locking implementation, if a thread wants to wait for a lock, it > will > > create a watcher object, set a watch on the lock before it, and wait on > the > > watcher. When the watch gets triggered, the watcher notifies any threads > > that are waiting on it. > > > > If the session expires, I would like to wake up all of the threads that > are > > waiting for a lock. To my understanding, only the default watcher > receives > > a notification that the session has expired. If this is the case, then I > > need to maintain a list somewhere of all of the watchers that threads are > > waiting on so that I can notify them all. > > > > Does this sound correct? > > >
