jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Conflict handling in Oak
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:00 GMT
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Michael Dürig <mduerig@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 18.12.12 14:43, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think we should have a consistent journal, if we have a journal.
>>
>> But the question is how close the journal has to match the original
>> commit, specially "move" and "copy" operations.
>>
>> So, do "move" and "copy" operations need to be preserved, or can they be
>> converted to "add node" / "remove node"?
>
>
> Now we are getting somewhere: This is exactly the original topic of OAK-464.
> If the Microkernel converts moves to add/remove, implementing rebase on top
> of that results in moves of big sub trees to become *very* expensive.

IIRC we didn't consider efficient move operations a design goal.
i guess we can live with non-optimized move operations.

cheers
stefan

>
> Michael
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message