I thought I might need one thread to perform an action before any other thread continues to run, but I found a better way of going about it. Thanks.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > > > No, no guarantee. > > Patrick > > > 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? > >> >
