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 11:30:02 GMT
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Michael Dürig <mduerig@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently the Microkernel contract does not specify a merge policy but is
> free to try to merge conflicting changes or throw an exception. I think this
> is problematic in various ways:
>
> 1) Automatic merging may violate the principal of least surprise. It can be
> arbitrary complex and still be incorrect wrt. different use cases which need
> different merge strategies for the same conflict.
>
> 2) Furthermore merges should be correctly mirrored in the journal. According
> to the Microkernel API: "deleting a node is allowed if the node existed in
> the given revision, even if it was deleted in the meantime." So the
> following should currently not fail (it does though, see OAK-507):
>
>     String base = mk.getHeadRevision();
>     String r1 = mk.commit("-a", base)
>     String r2 = mk.commit("-a", base)
>
> At this point retrieving the journal up to revision r2 should only contain a
> single -a operation. I'm quite sure this is currently not the case and the
> journal will contain two -a operations. One for revision r1 and another for
> revision r2.

if that's the case then it's a bug. the journal must IMO contain the exact diff
from a revision to its predecessor.

cheers
stefan

>
> 3) Throwing an unspecific MicrokernelException leaves the API consumer with
> no clue on what caused a commit to fail. Retrying a commit after some client
> side conflict resolution becomes a hit and miss. See OAK-442.
>
>
> 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.
>
> To address 2) My preferred solution would be to drop getJournal entirely
> from the Microkernel API. However, this means rebasing a branch would need
> to go into the Microkernel (OAK-464). Otherwise every merge defined for 1)
> would need to take care the journal is adjusted accordingly.
> Another possibility here is to leave the journal unadjusted. However then we
> need to specify MUST NOT for other merges in 1). Because only then can
> clients of the journal know how to interpret the journal (receptively the
> conflicts contained therein).
>
> To address 3) I'd simply derive a more specific exception from
> MicroKernelException and throw that in the case of a conflict. See OAK-496.
>
> Michael

Mime
View raw message