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.
Thanks,
Stu Hood
Architecture Software Developer
Mailtrust, a Division of Rackspace
