On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM, David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Return messages such as "your data was written to at least 1 node but >> not enough to make your write-consistency count". Do not help the >> situation. As the client that writes the data would be aware of the >> inconsistency, but the other clients would not. Thus it only makes >> sense to pass or fail entirely. (Thought it could be an interesting >> error message) >> > I should have thought about that before I sent it. Let me rephrase. Doesn't the current return message actually mean "your data was written to between 0 and N nodes, but not enoguh to make your write-consistency count"? I agree with you that "your data was written to at least 1 node but not enough to make your write consistency count" is not that useful. However, the current "failure" seems to merge a "real failure" (i.e. your data will never show up) with a "possible failure" (your data might show up) Personally I'd really ilke to know if "my data was not written at all", and that has a very different meaning than "my data was sort-of-written, but not replicated as widely as I'd like, but it someday might be, or it someday might not".
