jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <teof...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Conflict handling in Oak
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:12:33 GMT

On 18/dic/2012, at 09:49, Felix Meschberger wrote:

> Hi,
> Just remember that "MAY" is difficult to handle by developers: Can I depend on it or
not ? What if the "MAY" feature does not exist ? What if I develop on an implementation providing
the "MAY" feature and then running on an implementation not providing the "MAY" feature ?
> In essence, a "MAY" feature basically must be considered as non-existing :-(
> All in all, please don't use "MAY". Thanks from a developer ;-)

I remember such a pain when dealing with browser compliance to HTTP spec some years ago, SHOULD
/ MAY [NOT] were my enemies :-)
Apart from that, I agree with MichaelM (with the exception that I'd keep MAY out using either
MUST or MUST NOT, with a slight preference on MUST).
My 0.02 cents,


> Regards
> Felix
> Am 18.12.2012 um 09:37 schrieb Marcel Reutegger:
>> Hi,
>>> To address 1) I suggest we define a set of clear cut cases where any
>>> Microkernel implementations MUST merge. For the other cases I'm not sure
>>> whether we should make them MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT or MAY merge.
>> I agree and I think three cases are sufficient. MUST, MUST NOT and MAY.
>> MUST is for conflicts we know are easy and straight forward to resolve.
>> MUST NOT is for conflicts that are known to be problematic because there's
>> no clean resolution strategy.
>> MAY is for conflicts that have a defined resolution but we think happen
>> rarely and is not worth implementing.
>> I don't see how SHOULD NOT is useful in this context.
>> regards
>> marcel

View raw message