jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mete Atamel <mata...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: MongoMK: CommitCommandInstructionVisitor
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:19:26 GMT
I guess this makes sense, although I'm curious what MicroKernelIT tests
would fail if we simply change headRevisionId in
CommitCommandInstructionVisitor to baseRevisionId of Commit. I'm thinking
about the case where the passed in revision id is null and also other
cases where there are conflicting moves/adds/deletes.

-Mete

On 1/9/13 10:36 AM, "Marcel Reutegger" <mreutegg@adobe.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if the use of headRevisionId in
>CommitCommandInstructionVisitor
>is really correct... isn't it more appropriate to use the base revision
>of the associated
>commit?
>
>from my POV it makes more sense to apply instructions on stored nodes
>based on
>the base revision instead of the head revision. I think this also
>explains the behavior
>we currently see as described in OAK-507. instead of applying the
>instructions on the
>revision passed in MK.commit(), the visitor uses the head revision where
>the node
>is already gone.
>
>WDYT?
>
>regards
> marcel


Mime
View raw message