Hi eolivelli, tison, Thank you for reviewing and merging ZOOKEEPER-4475[1](pr#1820[2]).
It is time to move on ZOOKEEPER-4466[3](pr#1859[4]) which make standard watch and persistent watch orthogonal on same path. Contrast to pure client side fix ZOOKEEPER-4475[1], ZOOKEEPER-4466[3] demands only server side changes. I agree to what @eolivelli says "We need more eyes on this patch". Ping here for possible more attentions. [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4475 [2]: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1820 [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4466 [4]: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1859 Best, Kezhu Wang On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 8:33 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kezhu, > Sorry for late reply. > We should definitely move forward with this work > > > Enrico > > Il Lun 17 Ott 2022, 16:27 Kezhu Wang <kez...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > Ping. > > > > Best, > > Kezhu Wang > > > > > > On July 1, 2022 at 11:38:16, Kezhu Wang (kez...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > Hi tison, > > > > Thank you for reviewing. > > > > pr#1859 tries to support standard watches and persistent watches on same > > paths. It has no code conflicts with pr#1820, but test requirement on > > pr#1820. Assumes that: > > > > 1. Persistent watch (and/or child watch) on “/a” > > 2. Persistent recursive watch on “/a” > > > > Ideally, persistent watch and/or child watch should receive > > `NodeChildrenChanged` while persistent recursive watch should not. > Without > > pr#1820 which filter out `NodeChildrenChanged` for persistent recursive > > watch in client side, test introduced in pr#1859 will fail. > > > > There are other followups, which are related to watcher removing, I have > > reported but blocked by pr#1859(aka. ZOOKEEPER-4466): > > * ZOOKEEPER-4471[1]: Remove WatcherType.Children break persistent > watcher's > > child events > > * ZOOKEEPER-4472[2]: Support persistent watchers removing individually > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4471 > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4472 > > > > Best, > > Kezhu Wang > > > > On June 29, 2022 at 17:19:37, tison (wander4...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > Thanks for your contribution Kezhu! > > > > I've reviewed PR-1820. It looks good to me. PR-1859 seems a followup of > > 1820, will review 1859 after 1820 get accepted. > > > > Best, > > tison. > > > > > > Kezhu Wang <kez...@gmail.com> 于2022年6月28日周二 23:17写道： > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > First, let me summarize changes of these two issues and associated prs > > > here. > > > > > > ZOOKEEPER-4475[1] reports that NodeChildrenChanged could be delivered > to > > > persistent recursive watchers if a child watch is created on > descendants > > of > > > node being watched using persistent recursive watch. pr#1820[2] solves > > this > > > by filtering out NodeChildrenChanged events for persistent recursive > > > watches on the client side. > > > > > > ZOOKEEPER-4466[3] reports that standard watch and persistent watch > could > > > not coexist on same path. pr#1859[4] introduces WatchStats to count and > > > coexist different modes on same path. > > > > > > pr#1820 has been opened for a while but received no reviews. I think it > > is > > > pretty simple and solves a simple bug. It should take a long time to > > > review. > > > > > > For pr#1859, @eolivelli has given valuable comments. But both I and > > > @eolivelli think ZOOKEEPER-4466 deserves more attention. So, basically, > > we > > > need more reviewers to make sure pr#1859 goes in the right direction > and > > > breaks no sensible codes. > > > > > > It would be appreciated if any reviewers could take a look at these > prs. > > > > > > Best, > > > Kezhu Wang > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4475 > > > [2]: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1820 > > > [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4466 > > > [4]: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1859 > > > > > >
