[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16290053#comment-16290053 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-2901: ------------------------------------------- Github user phunt commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/377#discussion_r156808074 --- Diff: src/docs/src/documentation/content/xdocs/zookeeperAdmin.xml --- @@ -949,14 +949,15 @@ server.3=zoo3:2888:3888</programlisting> </varlistentry> <varlistentry> - <term>ttlNodesEnabled</term> + <term>zookeeper.extendedTypesEnabled</term> --- End diff -- Do we are have any room left for this? iiuc ttls are the last. My concern here - won't people be confused by this, e.g. "are containers extended types"? What do you think @Randgalt ? > Session ID that is negative causes mis-calculation of Ephemeral Type > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-2901 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2901 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug > Components: server > Affects Versions: 3.5.3 > Environment: Running 3.5.3-beta in Docker container > Reporter: Mark Johnson > Assignee: Jordan Zimmerman > Priority: Blocker > > In the code that determines the EphemeralType it is looking at the owner > (which is the client ID or connection ID): > EphemeralType.java: > public static EphemeralType get(long ephemeralOwner) { > if (ephemeralOwner == CONTAINER_EPHEMERAL_OWNER) { > return CONTAINER; > } > if (ephemeralOwner < 0) { > return TTL; > } > return (ephemeralOwner == 0) ? VOID : NORMAL; > } > However my connection ID is: > header.getClientId(): -720548323429908480 > This causes the code to think this is a TTL Ephemeral node instead of a > NORMAL Ephemeral node. > This also explains why this is random - if my client ID is non-negative > then the node gets added correctly. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)