jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edgar Poce <edgarp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Persistence Manager sanity check ehancements
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:05:59 GMT
Hi bertrand

On 7/5/05, Bertrand LEGA <legabertrand@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the copy approach either. I found the same limitation and
> > proposed to make the constructor public but there was no interest at
> > that moment. Feel free to post a jira issue.
> 
> Ok. I'll do that.

thanks, and please attach a patch.

> 
> > I'd like to add checks for node type constraints before committing the
> > contribution. I don't like the idea of committing a repair tool that
> > will surely break the repo in known circumstances. Thanks for
> > volunteering :).
> 
> Could you be more specific how the tool may introduce new
> inconsistencies ? Removing a mandatory name/property for example ?

yes, that's why I want to add checks for node type constraints.

> In this case, we need to check the mandatory state of the Item we want
> to remove and remove the parent too (and the parent of the parent and so
> on). But as you pointd out, you need a NodeTypeRegistry to do that.
> 
> What can be done for the property, instead of removing it is to set to a
> default value. Which can be done with a NodeTypeRegistry.

I think both strategies might be useful. I'd like a config that tries
to remove the reference to the corrupted property and then tries to
add a new one if needed.

> Tell me if I'm doing something you've already done.

No, I've added a few test cases.

> 
> I'm interested to have your feedback on these points.
I like your ideas and I look forward to add them. 

thanks,
edgar

> Cheers,
> Bertrand.
> 
>

Mime
View raw message