jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Nuescheler" <da...@day.com>
Subject Re: Same name siblings
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:48:23 GMT
Hi Jukka,

thanks a lot for bringing up the point.

> Support for same name siblings is troublesome and currently the best
> practice is to avoid them if possible. In many cases the default
> response when we see people having problems with SNS is to tell them
> not to use the feature.
I think one of the problems that I see is that people tend to use
SNS for anonymous collections without a sort order.
Which should be a very lightweight operation, and unfortunately
choosing SNS intuitively for that is probably just the most unstable
and heavyweight construct someone could choose in JCR.
I have not seen a lot of real justified use cases for SNS.

On the other hand I would really like to give people a means to
work with large anonymous unordered collections.
I think a feature that would address the "I have a bag of objects
and I just want to persist them without thinking of a 'name' for
each" usecase, would definitely be great. Maybe this could
be the introduction of an addNode() without a childnode name.

> I think that's lame. We should either treat SNS as a first-class
> feature that we just haven't been able to make work yet, or explicitly
> deprecate it and plan to drop or at least seriously limit the feature
> as far as is permitted by the JCR standard.
> The current status where SNS is kind of supported but "you should not
> use it!" is IMHO not sustainable in the long run.
> WDYT, is SNS worth the effort, or should we consider dropping it?
I don't think that it is problematic to have some features that are not
optimized. For example in most databases DELETE operations are slow
and people are referred to use TRUNCATE functions instead.

I think people are using SNS for the wrong reasons.

regards,
david

Mime
View raw message