jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Inconsistent behavior upon moving nodes
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:39:55 GMT
sound good... the rest was probably a misunderstanding :-)
gruss
angela

On 2/8/13 10:39 AM, Michael Dürig wrote:
>
>
> 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
> argument,
> 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.
>
> Michael
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>

Mime
View raw message