As I mentioned in the other thread, please test branch CURATOR-72 with my 
latest push and let me know how it performs.

-JZ

On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Evaristo José Camarero 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> My only explanation is related with CURATOR-52 patch, and the fact that now 
> there is more options that ConnectionLostException could fire a 
> ConnectionLostEvent.
> 
> On the other hand, I think there is a potential race condition between 
> ConnectionLostExceptions triggered by background operations and the ZK 
> Watcher.Event.KeeperState.SyncConnected that could fire a  sequence like this:
> 
> - RECONNECTED 
> - LOST
> 
> even when the Zk client is really SyncConnected
> 
> 
> If this sequence happens the app will take the actions needed when the 
> connection is LOST even when is CONNECTED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> De: Evaristo José Camarero <[email protected]>
> Para: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
> Enviado: Martes 12 de noviembre de 2013 17:41
> Asunto: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.3.1
> 
> 
> Go ahead with 2.3.1.
> 
> I have repeated the regression of my app several times with several Curator 
> releases and this what I see:
> 
> With 2.3.0 and 2.3.1 "some times" I see LOST events after RECONNECT events 
> (always logged in the same second) and this is messing up the app. My first 
> test with 2.3.0 was succesfull and I tought that the issue was with 2.3.1.
> 
> The tests works fine with 2.1.0 and 2.2.0 (consistenly)
> 
> The change is between 2.2.0 and 2.3.0. Any clue? I am using Curator 
> Framework, Leader Selector, PathChildrenCache and NodeCache
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Evaristo
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> De: Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]>
> Para: [email protected]; Evaristo José Camarero 
> <[email protected]> 
> Enviado: Martes 12 de noviembre de 2013 16:14
> Asunto: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.3.1
> 
> 
> OK - We’ll hold the release. Please let us know asap.
> 
> -Jordan
> 
> 
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Evaristo José Camarero 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi there,
>> 
>> I am testing this new release with my own app.
>> 
>> I find problems with statedChanged in LeaderSelector that were not happening 
>> with 2.3.0 (and I have removed all the PresistenEphemeralNodes because I was 
>> not able to make them interact properly with the ConnectionStateListeners in 
>> any previous release with my own app)
>> 
>> I have very strange ordering of the connection events:
>> - I have sequences in which after RECONNECTED event (when ZK servers are 
>> coming back), an unexpected LOST event appears
>> 
>> I am trying to provide a test to show the issue, but I am failing at the 
>> moment.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Evaristo
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> De: Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]>
>> Para: [email protected] 
>> Enviado: Domingo 10 de noviembre de 2013 17:28
>> Asunto: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.3.1
>> 
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> This is a vote to release Apache Curator, version 2.3.1. This is a small bug 
>> fix release to address
>> a few things missing in 2.3.0. 
>> 
>> *** Please download, test and vote. The vote will be open for approx. 72 
>> hours
>> 
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for 
>> convenience.
>> 
>> Link to release notes:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12325552
>> 
>> Staging repo:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/curator/2.3.1/
>>      NOTE: still using incubator repo as INFRA hasn’t create TLP yet
>> 
>> Binary artifacts:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-112/
>> 
>> The tag to be voted upon:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=d69f3f9e4d23695690c85dec038502dfac946f8b
>> 
>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/curator/KEYS
>> 
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

Reply via email to