Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of anchela@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.33 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5114C105.20908@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:10:29 +0100
From: Angela Schreiber <anchela@adobe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent behavior upon moving nodes
References: 
 <CAOFYJNaALe=XNmr46eTcpnmtKSgVKY=Y2p9-H=an5z1_yV1LVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <506E9343.9040103@apache.org>
 <CAOFYJNaHgKhqji9ttfxWef53Pv+wfTjnorW3_8PG6eyPk9oY6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOFYJNZrPg8ACHTVbycgYCaNHqT=0YhMwBKqW+Jw+JomYYv2kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51113158.9030001@adobe.com>
 <CAOFYJNaG3amtxJKoQcOW9ykqVcNK_Gc5BBJM5Q_CXTxdNTXz5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <44626644-9749-475A-BD48-3AC7190CAEC6@adobe.com>
 <CAOFYJNaKLVmR3=Ourw4+bFO-TcNda_nj-HooorEg-KxOOM8Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5113A79E.7000001@apache.org> <5113ABFC.3000505@adobe.com>
 <CAOFYJNZS5-h1OX0CGxEZza8L75avOE_6oo6qBJhRjJ9Xgce01w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5113AF6B.5070705@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <5113AF6B.5070705@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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.

kind regards
angela


On 2/7/13 2:43 PM, Michael D�rig 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
>>