You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zookeeper.apache.org by jiangwen w <wj...@gmail.com> on 2011/03/16 10:16:03 UTC

let the children in order

how do you think about let the children in order and provide some API to
access some of all children under a node.
also let the user specify the comparator. order is very important in some
applications.
I am very happy to provide a patch for this.

Sincerely

Re: let the children in order

Posted by jiangwen w <wj...@gmail.com>.
no timestamp are needed, sort children only by the child name and the
comparator can be specified in a config file for each parent

On 3/16/11, MIS <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the children are added by prefixing a time-stamp, then once the children
> are obtained using the existing API, then sorting the obtained children is
> easy.
>
> I remember there was once a discussion to provide an API to get the children
> in order, don't know what happened to it.
>
> Thanks,
> MIS.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM, jiangwen w <wj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> how do you think about let the children in order and provide some API to
>> access some of all children under a node.
>> also let the user specify the comparator. order is very important in some
>> applications.
>> I am very happy to provide a patch for this.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>

Re: let the children in order

Posted by MIS <mi...@gmail.com>.
If the children are added by prefixing a time-stamp, then once the children
are obtained using the existing API, then sorting the obtained children is
easy.

I remember there was once a discussion to provide an API to get the children
in order, don't know what happened to it.

Thanks,
MIS.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM, jiangwen w <wj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> how do you think about let the children in order and provide some API to
> access some of all children under a node.
> also let the user specify the comparator. order is very important in some
> applications.
> I am very happy to provide a patch for this.
>
> Sincerely
>