I saw your patch and was afraid you wouldn't like to wait for me and change
it. :-) I'll continue to work on my issues and also put them into jira for
review so that my team can start to work on the new API.
After your patch is applied, I'll adapt my patches, which should not change
anything to the user facing API of ZK.
> I see some patches already, which is great, however there's a
> big/complicated refactoring that's pending here:
> and to some extent here:
> and refactorings in this code prior to 733/823 going in are going to
> cause me much pain. (esp as I'm moving code around, creating new
> classes, etc)
> Could you hold off a bit on changes in this area until these two are
> committed? Ben is working on the reviews now. Ben please prioritize
> review/commit of these two.
> On 08/11/2010 08:23 AM, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Hallo Mahadev,
> > thank you for your nice answer. Yes, we'll of cause preserve
> > compatibility. Otherwise there is no chance to get accepted.
> > I assume the following things must keep their interfaces:
> > ZooKeeper (It'll call the new interface in the background),
> > ASyncCallback, Watcher
> > We may want to change: ClientCnxn (faktor out some things, remove dep on
> > ZooKeeper)
> > I think other classes should not be involved at all in our issues. My
> > collegue Patrick was so kind to fill the jira issues.
> > Best regards,
> > Thomas
> > Mahadev Konar:
> >> Also, I am assuming you have backwards compatability in mind when you
> >> suggest these changes right?
> >> The interfaces of zookeeper client should not be changing as part of
> >> this, though the recursive delete hasn't been introduced yet (its only
> >> available in 3.4, so we can move it out into a helper class).
> >> Thanks
> >> mahadev
> >> On 8/11/10 7:40 AM, "Mahadev Konar"<maha...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> >> HI Thomas,
> >> I read through the list of issues you posted, most of them seem
> >> reasonable to fix. The one's you have mentioned below might take quite a
> >> bit of time to fix and again a lot of testing! (just a warning :)). It
> >> would be great if you'd want to clean this up for 3.4. Please go ahead
> >> and file a jira. These improvements would be good to have in the
> >> zookeeper java client.
> >> For deleteRecursive, I definitely agree that it should be a helper
> >> class. I don't believe it should be in the direct zookeeper api!
> >> Thanks
> >> mahadev
> >> On 8/11/10 2:45 AM, "Thomas Koch"<tho...@koch.ro> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I started yesterday to work on my idea of an alternative ZooKeeper
> >> client interface. Instead of methods on a ZooKeeper class, a user
> >> should instantiate an Operation (Create, Delete, ...) and forward it to
> >> an Executor which handles session loss errors and alikes.
> >> By doing that, I got shocked by the sheer number of WTF issues I found.
> >> I'm sorry for ranting now, but it gets quicker to the poing.
> >> - Hostlist as string
> >> The hostlist is parsed in the ctor of ClientCnxn. This violates the rule
> >> of not doing (too much) work in a ctor. Instead the ClientCnxn should
> >> receive an object of class "HostSet". HostSet could then be
> >> instantiated e.g. with a comma separated string.
> >> - cyclic dependency ClientCnxn, ZooKeeper
> >> ZooKeeper instantiates ClientCnxn in its ctor with this and therefor
> >> builds a cyclic dependency graph between both objects. This means, you
> >> can't have the one without the other. So why did you bother do make
> >> them to separate classes in the first place?
> >> ClientCnxn accesses ZooKeeper.state. State should rather be a property
> >> of ClientCnxn. And ClientCnxn accesses zooKeeper.get???Watches() in its
> >> method primeConnection(). I've not yet checked, how this dependency
> >> should be resolved better.
> >> - Chroot is an attribute of ClientCnxn
> >> I'd like to have one process that uses ZooKeeper for different things
> >> (managing a list of work, locking some unrelated locks elsewhere). So
> >> I've components that do this work inside the same process. These
> >> components should get the same zookeeper-client reference chroot'ed for
> >> their needs. So it'd be much better, if the ClientCnxn would not care
> >> about the chroot.
> >> - deleteRecursive does not belong to the other methods
> >> DeleteRecursive has been committed to trunk already as a method to the
> >> zookeeper class. So in the API it has the same level as the atomic
> >> operations create, delete, getData, setData, etc. The user must get the
> >> false impression, that deleteRecursive is also an atomic operation.
> >> It would be better to have deleteRecursive in some helper class but not
> >> that deep in zookeeper's core code. Maybe I'd like to have another
> >> policy on how to react if deleteRecursive fails in the middle of its
> >> work?
> >> - massive code duplication in zookeeper class
> >> Each operation calls validatePath, handles the chroot, calls ClientCnxn
> >> and checks the return header for error. I'd like to address this with
> >> the operation classes:
> >> Each operation should receive a prechecked Path object. Calling
> >> ClientCnxn and error checking is not (or only partly) the concern of
> >> the operation but of an "executor" like class.
> >> - stat is returned by parameter
> >> Since one can return only one value in java it's the only choice to do
> >> so. Still it feels more like C then like Java. However with operator
> >> classes one could simply get the result values with getter functions
> >> after the execution.
> >> - stat calls static method on org.apache.zookeeper.server.DataTree
> >> It's a huge jump from client code to the internal server class DataTree.
> >> Shouldn't there rather be some class related to the protobuffer stat
> >> class that knows how to copy a stat?
> >> - Session class?
> >> Maybe it'd make sense to combine hostlist, sessionId, sessionPassword
> >> and sessionTimeout in a Session class so that the ctor of ClientCnxn
> >> won't get too long?
> >> I may have missed some items. :-)
> >> Once again, please excuse my harsh tone. May I put the above issues in
> >> jira and would you accept (backwards compatible) patches for it for
> >> 3.4.0?
> >> Zookeeper is a fascinating project. Cudos to the devs. I've only looked
> >> in the client side code, which is what most users of zookeeper will
> >> ever see if they see any zookeeper internal code at all. So it may make
> >> sense to make this piece of the project as nice and clean as possible.
> >>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-zookeeper-
> >> dev/201005.mbox/%3c201005261509.54236.tho...@koch.ro%3e
> >> Best regards,
> >> Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro
Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro