[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-84?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14101463#comment-14101463
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-84:
---------------------------------------
Github user karkum commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/38#issuecomment-52567036
Hmm, let me make sure I understand:
* In ```InterProcessMutex```, we expose the actual lockPath being used by
the lock (which could be either ephemeral or persistent).
* This would allow any user of ```InterProcessMutex``` to take care of
clean up/notification steps based on whether the lock of that path actually
exists or not.
I think this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it is ideal to expose the
actual lock path used by this recipe. What if a client is using the default
implementation (with ephemeral nodes), then getting the path would be pretty
useless, since that node would be deleted once connection is lost right?
> More flexibility for InterProcessMutex extensions
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CURATOR-84
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-84
> Project: Apache Curator
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: Recipes
> Affects Versions: 2.3.0
> Reporter: Jozef Vilcek
> Attachments: CURATOR-84.patch
>
>
> I have a need for a durable InterProcessMutex. Main reason for this are
> processes with critical sections, where I can not afford to loose a lock due
> to session expiration. In such case, others might acquire a lock and kick in
> while the previous process is still running but e.g. experiencing connection
> issues. To kill this temporally detached process in favor of others would be
> too costly.
> To achieve such behavior, I need lock nodes to be created in PERSISTENT mode.
> This is not possible to do easily with currently implementation of locks due
> to few internal scoped classes and methods. I would like to change this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
