Aaron Crow commented on ZOOKEEPER-679:

Hi Mahadev, apologies for the delayed response. Yes you're right, I didn't 
include a build.xml file. I'm really sorry, just haven't found the time to put 
all that together. 

Related, it's interesting to me what Chris is saying about "abandoned (partly 
because patch process is too onerous)". When I had the patch in the main 
project, it was pretty easy to get it running with the main project's test 
framework. As a standalone contrib, however, I felt kinda stymied because 
there's real overhead in putting everything together.

Any thoughts from your end on the github approach vs. main project?

Thanks for all your time and help with the patch...


> Offers a node design for interacting with the Java Zookeeper client.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-679
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-679
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: contrib, java client, tests
>            Reporter: Aaron Crow
>            Assignee: Aaron Crow
>             Fix For: 3.4.0
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-679.patch, ZOOKEEPER-679.patch, 
> ZOOKEEPER-679.patch, ZOOKEEPER-679.patch
> Following up on my conversations with Patrick and Mahadev 
> (http://n2.nabble.com/Might-I-contribute-a-Node-design-for-the-Java-API-td4567695.html#a4567695).
> This patch includes the implementation as well as unit tests. The first unit 
> test gives a simple high level demo of using the node API.
> The current implementation is simple and is only what I need withe current 
> project I am working on. However, I am very open to any and all suggestions 
> for improvement.
> This is a proposal to support a simplified node (or File) like API into a 
> Zookeeper tree, by wrapping the Zookeeper Java client. It is similar to 
> Java's File API design.
> Although, I'm trying to make it easier in a few spots. For example, deleting 
> a Node recursively is done by default. I also lean toward resolving 
> Exceptions "under the hood" when it seems appropriate. For example, if you 
> ask a Node if it exists, and its parent doesn't even exist, you just get a 
> false back (rather than a nasty Exception).
> As for watches and ephemeral nodes, my current work does not need these 
> things so I currently have no handling of them. But if potential users of  
> the "Node a.k.a. File" design want these things, I'd be open to supporting 
> them as reasonable.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to