Yes, I mentioned this over a year and a half ago: - http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/leader-election-td6086870.html - looks like it still hasn't been rectified.
Ishaaq On 11 September 2012 11:13, nileader <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi,all > > About “Leader Election”part of zookeeper recipes documention( > http://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/trunk/recipes.html#sc_leaderElection),many > of my colleagues are confused on this: "Otherwise, watch for changes on > "ELECTION/guid-n_j", where j is the smallest sequence number such that j < > i and n_j is a znode in C;" > > In my course, I tell them that in this using case， just watch the node > that only smaller than you, And the meaning of the expression here is > inconsistent. > > I think the document is error。 > > > > > *nileader* ni掌櫃的個人郵箱 > *MSN*： [email protected] > *Weibo*：http://weibo.com/nileader > ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— > This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally > privileged, private information of correct recipient and nileader. If you > received this email in error, please delete it immediately and do not copy > it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. > Thank you. > * > > 本電郵(包括任何附件)可能含有機密資料並受法律保護，屬於ni掌櫃和正確收件人之間的私有信息。如您不是正確的收件人，請您立即刪除本郵件。請不要將本電郵進行複製並用作任何其它用途，或透露本郵件之內容。謝謝。 > * > > > > 2012/9/8 Ben Bangert <[email protected]> > > > As I was implementing read-only mode in the Python client based on the > > Java client patch, I noticed a rather odd naming for the error you get if > > you send a modification command to a read-only > > server...NotReadOnlyException. > > > > Why the sudden change in error context? > > > > For reference, here's some of the other errors that Zookeeper may return > > when making an API call: > > NoNode > > NoAuth > > BadVersion > > NoChildrenForEphemerals > > NodeExists > > NotEmpty > > > > So the explanation for these errors are consistent, "your API call cannot > > be completed because of this state on the server". Personally, I'm a huge > > fan of consistency in an API, so these are all great. But then with > > NotReadOnly, we have an error that is not referring to the state of the > > server (that it *is* ReadOnly), but one that refers to the semantics of > the > > API call itself. Given all the other errors, I was really expecting the > > server to throw a ReadOnly error indicating your call cannot be completed > > due to that state on the server (like the others). > > > > Was there a reason for the context switch in error naming? I understand > > given its been merged in for almost 2 years now that there's unlikely to > be > > any switch to make it consistent in context with the other errors, but it > > might be nice for future feature additions to try and document or enforce > > better consistency in the API. > > > > Cheers, > > Ben >
