jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reuteg...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: Concurrent modifications ...
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:39:50 GMT
Robert Shiner wrote:
> Yup, that seems to work, thanks.  Although not against 1.0, I needed to
> checkout and build the latest snapshot.

oh, you are right. thanks for pointing that out. the related issue is: 

> Does anyone know when the next release with the lock fixes in is due?
> Also I have a question around applying the lockable mixin.
> I understand that a node can not be locked unless it has the lockable mixin
> applied.

IMO a good node type design already has the mix:lockable mixin in its 
definition for nodes that should be lockable. with such a design it is 
then not necessary for an application to add mixins on node instances.

> If I want to lock a node, but I'm not sure whether it already has
> the lockable mixin, how can I check and then add the mixin in such a way
> that is safe in a concurrent environment?

node.isNodeType("mix:lockable") will return true if it is lockable.

you need to aquire a deep lock on a lockable ancestor of that node then 
you can add a mixin to the desired node. but as I pointed out before I 
suggest you do not add mixins to individual node instances but define 
lockable mixins in your type hierarchy.


View raw message