I'm running the 3.0.0 release, and I'm receiving a warning thrown by this block 
of code:
> case NodeDeleted:
>     synchronized (dataWatches) {
>         addTo(dataWatches.remove(path), result);
>     }
>     // XXX This shouldn't be needed, but just in case
>     synchronized (existWatches) {
>         addTo(existWatches.remove(path), result);
>         LOG.warn("We are triggering an exists watch for delete! Shouldn't 
> happen!");
>     }
>     synchronized (childWatches) {
>         addTo(childWatches.remove(path), result);
>     }
>     break;


Why shouldn't an exists watch be triggered by a node being deleted? That is a 
really common use case in my code, so I want to rule it out as the cause of a 
bug I'm hunting for.


Stu Hood
Architecture Software Developer
Mailtrust, a Division of Rackspace

Reply via email to