[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4747?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kezhu Wang resolved ZOOKEEPER-4747.
-----------------------------------
Resolution: Implemented
master: 3e2d6f3436962cd4a0445bc6c22f583e425d7ced
> Java api lacks synchronous version of sync() call
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-4747
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4747
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: java client
> Reporter: Kezhu Wang
> Assignee: Kezhu Wang
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 3.10.0
>
> Time Spent: 1.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Ideally, it should be redundant just as what [~breed] says in ZOOKEEPER-1167.
> {quote}
> it wasn't an oversight. there is no reason for a synchronous version. because
> of the ordering guarantees, if you issue an asynchronous sync, the next call,
> whether synchronous or asynchronous will see the updated state.
> {quote}
> But in case of connection loss and absent of ZOOKEEPER-22, client has to
> check result of asynchronous sync before next call. So, currently, we can't
> simply issue an fire-and-forget asynchronous sync and an read to gain strong
> consistent. Then in a synchronous call chain, client has to convert
> asynchronous {{sync}} to synchronous to gain strong consistent. This is what
> I do in
> [EagerACLFilterTest::syncClient|https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/blob/f42c01de73867ffbc12707b3e9f9cd7f847fe462/zookeeper-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/EagerACLFilterTest.java#L98],
> it is apparently unfriendly to end users.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
