jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Reutegger <mreut...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: Observation design (Was: svn commit: r1351414 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak: api/ChangeSet.java api/ContentSession.java core/ContentSessionImpl.java)
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:34:58 GMT
how about going one step further and define some conditions
where *no* observation of changes is possible?

that would allow for lots of concurrent writes without worrying
how to diff them or get them into a sequence.

in the JCR world that could be a mixin type, but IIUC oak doesn't
know what a mixin is. maybe path based?


> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Michael Dürig <mduerig@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Yes but... with and without such a lease mechanism my approach is more
> > general and doesn't hurt anything: if older revisions are available my
> > approach generates a more fine grained set of events. If older revisions are
> > not available any more it just gracefully degenerated to your approach. If
> > in the extreme only two revisions (last observed and latest) are available
> > it is the same as your approach.
> OK, I'm fine with that. This means basically that we don't make
> guarantees about things like user data, etc. Should we just drop them
> entirely instead of having a vague "they might be there but don't rely
> on it" contract?

View raw message