[
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)
