[gunnarmorling]

Had you read on, you'd have seen that I am discussing this very point:

> leader election will only ever be eventually correct... So you’ll always need to be prepared to detect and fence off work done by a previous leader.

[mprime1]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be bashful. I am not familiar with S3 and maybe what you describe is a perfectly safe solution for S3 and certain classes of usage.

I could not get past the point where you promulgate the idea that ZK can be used to implement locks.

Traditionally a 'lock' guarantees mutual exclusion between threads or processes.

"Distributed locks" are not locks at all. They look the same from API perspective, but they have much weaker properties. They cannot be used to guarantee mutual exclusion.

I think any mention of distributed locks / leader election should come with a giant warning: THESE LOCKS ARE NOT AS STRONG AS THE ONES YOU ARE USED TO. Skipping this warning is doing a disservice to your readers.