jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Angela Schreiber <anch...@day.com>
Subject Re: SPI: local vs remote checking
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT

> Is the SPI implementation supposed to ever throw a LockException, 


> or can it rely on the transient layer doing lock checks upfront? 

that's a rhetoric question, right?
the spi impl must not rely on the client to behave properly.
but the client may cover some obvious cases (e.g. if the client
is always updated).

> (1) If the transient layer always attempts to check for locks, the SPI 
> code that actually implements lock checks may never be used (code 
> coverage).

as i said before: my intention is, that the client not 'always'
check but does, when it can assume, that a lock is present
(as explained in my last mail)...

> (2) Performance - we need to balance between "fail early" and "reduce 
> roundtrips between JCR and SPI layer".

i guess, noone would oppose ;)
that argument is general enough that everybody agrees.

> I wouldn't want the transient layer to check for locks, even if 
> CacheBehaviour is INVALIDATE.

auch gut.
feel free to propose concrete changes, that would fit your
needs. then we have something real do to argue about.


View raw message