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 14:35:10 GMT


On 18.12.12 14:25, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 1) Make the definition of conflicts sufficiently strong to exclude such
>> cases. That's Tom's proposal from this Thread.
>
> Ah, OK, I thought you meant it could still be a problem even with my
> proposal.
>
> I guess failing on (node-level-) conflicts would be the most simple
> solution, as a start. It would also simplify checking node type
> constraints within oak-core I guess (if we actually want to have strict
> checks).
>
> At the beginning, I would probably not try to merge conflicts in oak-core,
> and simply fail the commit. If it turns out to be a problem in reality, we
> could still change it. Unless, of course, we already know it's a problem?

Yes, this matches the way we currently do it through 
AnnotatingConflictHandler in oak-core. We just mark the conflicts and 
later fail the commit with the ConflictValidator if such markers are 
present.


>
>> 2) Allow inconsistent journals.
>
> I guess we don't want that. But the question is how close the journal has
> to match the original commit, specially "move" and "copy" operations. If
> they need to be preserved (do they?), then it's complicated.

There is no use for a journal which is not accurate. After all, if we 
consider implementing rebase (OAK-464) on top of the journal, it has to 
be accurate.

Michael

>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>

Mime
View raw message