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: Inconsistent behavior upon moving nodes
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:39:23 GMT

On 8.2.13 9:10, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> hi michael
> ok... but the subject of this thread is the behavior of nodes
> upon move and as a simple test shows the behavior is the same
> for both referenceable and non-referenceable nodes.
> while i agree that the behavior of "same nodes" may change
> due to the way we define the identifier, i would still claim
> that the way we currently implement the move is not correct
> and the inconsistency between new and existing nodes will be
> troublesome for the reasons marcel explained.

Yes I agreed... and actually never denied that ;-)

There are now various parts to this story:

1) The intended behaviour I had in mind is questionable. See Jukka's 
2) the intended behaviour I had in mind is not correctly implemented,
3) support for identifier is not there yet as you mentioned (OAK-101).

I'll first fix the obvious bugs (OAK-614 was one). Afterwards we should 
agree on the "right" behaviour and implement that along side with the 
open todos in OAK-101.


> kind regards
> angela
> On 2/7/13 2:43 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
>> On 7.2.13 13:40, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Angela Schreiber<anchela@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> as far as i remember we never decided to use the path as
>>>> identifier. we said that we want to keep it as stable as
>>>> possible... for a referenceable node Node#getIdentifier
>>>> returns the UUID for a non-referenceable node it should
>>>> include the parent identifier and a relative path thing.
>>> I think Michael was referring just to nodes that are non-referenceable
>>> and have no referenceable ancestors. The relevant discussions are
>>> summarized in OAK-101.
>> Yes indeed. Thanks for clarifying.
>> Michael
>>> BR,
>>> Jukka Zitting

View raw message