Christopher L. Shannon

Yeah you can close it as done.

> Looks good but there were a few references to old name (property) still hanging around in the javadoc. Thanks, I can fix those tomorrow morning and then we can...

@milleruntime - Ok I added a new commit to fix the Javadoc and enum. (I also rebased off main to make sure no conflicts or issues). This should be ready...

I reviewed this as well and it also LGTM. This may not be a big deal but my only comment is it would be nice to see a couple tests...

@EdColeman - this issue can probably be closed as handling concurrent updates are being done in the original issue in #2799

This was implemented as part of #2967

@milleruntime - In your update you removed the main method, do you still want to do that now or do it later like the others?

@keith-turner - The retry was removed as it was discussed and determined to not be necessary or wanted and should just fail instead. I forget when but I believe it...

@keith-turner - I think I misread your comment initially as I was thinking you meant to do the PR after this PR is merged (but before releasing 2.1) but I...

> We should keep the clause about eventually consistent until we can strengthen the use of versioning information so that there is a stronger guarantee. Its in the nature of...