jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Conflict handling in Oak
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:32:27 GMT

On 18.12.12 9:13, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> hi,
>> Just remember that "MAY" is difficult to handle by developers: Can I depend
>> on it or not ?
> no, you can't.
>> What if the "MAY" feature does not exist?
> in this context it means, a commit will fail because of a conflict. for oak-jcr that
> will usually mean it throws an InvalidItemStateException.
>> What if I develop on
>> an implementation providing the "MAY" feature and then running on an
>> implementation not providing the "MAY" feature ?
> you will get a different behavior and will be advised to read the documentation ;)

It will make different Microkernel implementations less interchangeable 
though. The differences in the observable effect between an 
implementation which is able to merge a certain conflict compared to one 
that isn't might be *very* subtle and might lead to errors which are 
hard to foresee and diagnose. I think we are better of if we just 
specify the merges which are MUST and make all others MUST NOT.


>> In essence, a "MAY" feature basically must be considered as non-existing :-(
>> All in all, please don't use "MAY". Thanks from a developer ;-)
> that's a valid alternative.
> what do others think?
> regards
>   marcel

View raw message