I don't think zk is very very hard to get right. There are exmaples in
src/recipes which implements locks/queues/others. There is ZOOKEEPER-22 to
make it even more easier for application to use.
Regarding re registration of watches, you can deifnitely write code and
submit is as a part of well documented contrib module which lays out the
assumptions/design of it. It could very well be useful for others. Its just
that folks havent had much time to focus on these areas as yet.
On 5/4/10 2:58 PM, "Adam Rosien" <a...@rosien.net> wrote:
> I use zkclient in my work at kaChing and I have mixed feelings about
> it. On one hand it makes "easy things easy" which is great, but on the
> other hand I very few ideas what assumptions it makes "under the
> hood". I also dislike some of the design choices such as unchecked
> exceptions, but that's neither here nor there. It would take some
> extensive documentation work by the authors to really enumerate the
> model and assumptions, but the project doesn't seem to be active
> (either from it being adequate for its current users or just
> inactive). I'm not sure I could derive the assumptions myself.
> I'm a bit frustrated that zk is "very, very hard to really get right".
> At a project level, can't we create structures to avoid most of these
> errors? Can there be a "standard model" with detailed assumptions and
> implementations of all the recipes? How can we start this? Is there
> something that makes this too hard?
> I feel like a recipe page is a big fail; wouldn't an example app that
> uses locks and barriers be that much more compelling?
> For the common FAQ items like "you need to re-register the watch",
> can't we just create code that implements this pattern? My goal is to
> live up to the motto: a good API is impossible to use incorrectly.
> .. Adam
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In general, writing this sort of layer on top of ZK is very, very hard to
>> get really right for general use. In a simple use-case, you can probably
>> nail it but distributed systems are a Zoo, to coin a phrase. The problem is
>> that you are fundamentally changing the metaphors in use so assumptions can
>> come unglued or be introduced pretty easily.
>> One example of this is the fact that ZK watches *don't* fire for every
>> change but when you write listener oriented code, you kind of expect that
>> they will. That makes it really, really easy to introduce that assumption
>> in the heads of the programmer using the event listener library on top of
>> ZK. Another example is how the atomic get content/set watch call works in
>> ZK is easy to violate in an event driven architecture because the thread
>> that watches ZK probably resets the watch. If you assume that the listener
>> will read the data, then you have introduced a timing mismatch between the
>> read of the data and the resetting of the watch. That might be OK or it
>> might not be. The point is that these changes are subtle and tricky to get
>> exactly right.
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Jonathan Holloway <
>> jonathan.hollo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why this isn't part of the Zookeeper trunk already?