I'm actually not pushing back at all, I just want to make sure we do it right rather than rush into doing it. In particular, I'd like to understand whether the story between TTL nodes and sessions is crispy. I believe etcd has TTL because they don't have sessions and can't have ephemerals... or at least didn't have sessions, is it still the case? In our case, we have chosen early on to have sessions. Having TTL nodes seems to give the option of not relying on sessions, but if I remember correctly, this is not what we are doing in the current patch. The client still creates a session and issues requests through a session. I'm mostly trying to see from the perspective of a user what I'd need to do to benefit from the feature, when it makes sense to use it rather than ephemerals, and how to do it in a meaningful way. On the server side, we already have a mechanism to expire sessions, do we a separate scheme to expire TTL nodes or can we use the same mechanism? Does it make sense to consider a TTL node as a degenerate case of a session in which I have a single ephemeral node? My recollection is that it currently uses the container manager instead.
-Flavio > On 29 Aug 2016, at 19:19, Camille Fournier <cami...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'm happy to take back up the conversation of why have this at all. > I proposed this feature after doing some personal research into etcd for a > talk about a year and a half ago. I found that one of the interesting > features of etcd was that you could have clients enable ephemeral data > without sticky sessions to the server. This is a popular feature in etcd > and I can understand the desire to have a more lightweight way to create > such nodes. > > I suppose I will kick it back to you, what are you afraid of vis a vis > usage? > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I've left some time back a request to have it somewhere so that I could >> leave some specific review comments and asked a question about the API >> changes. >> >> I'd like to understand at a high level what we are trying to achieve. For >> example, the description of the jira mentions that the goal is to enable >> nodes to expire without relying on sessions. Does it imply that this is for >> applications that will rely purely on local sessions? Should we provide a >> way of not having sessions at all, global or local? >> >> My sense is that this is a great feature and I'm happy to see a patch and >> discussion, but I feel that we need to discuss it further so that we >> understand how this is going to be used. At least, I'd like to understand >> it better. >> >> -Flavio >> >>> On 29 Aug 2016, at 13:11, Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Per Benjamin: "i'm fine letting it go in as is" >>> >>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Camille! It's fine with me, although notice that Flavio has been >>>> providing feedback and has some concerns. Also there is a pending issue >>>> (testing) identified by Ben most recently and afaict not yet resolved. >>>> >>>> Patrick >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Camille Fournier <cami...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK I'm the slacker that proposed us doing this in the first place and >> I'm >>>>> THRILLED that you have done it Jordan, thank you so much. >>>>> Pat, I can review and merge, unless you are concerned with >> interference on >>>>> other issues. LMK. >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jordan. This looks like a great new feature, but I'm afraid I'm >>>>> focused >>>>>> on other things atm. I don't have much time after work/home >> currently, as >>>>>> such I've been focused on other priorities; 1) supporting existing >>>>>> users/issues in 3.4, and 2) trying to get 3.5 branch to production >> ready. >>>>>> There are already a number of features queued up in that branch (3.5) >>>>> which >>>>>> we need to get out to folks. Thanks for your patience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrick >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>>>> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So - what’s a guy got to do to get this merged? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Jordan >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>> This looks really handy for implementing transient data structures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>>>>>> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any chance of getting https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>> jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2169 >>>>>>>>> merged? It has: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * A patch that’s been reviewed >>>>>>>>> * 7 Votes >>>>>>>>> * 15 Watchers >>>>>>>>> * Will help ZooKeeper compete against etcd/consul >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Jordan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >>>>>> Hein >>>>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
