jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Conflict handling causes spurious observation events
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:00:51 GMT

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
<chetan.mehrotra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The end result in either case is a sequence of events from b1 to h3.
> If this is fine (and something which cannot be avoided) then cannot we

In general that can't be avoided in a fully distributed case.

> just make the NodeState comparable and avoid synchronizing the merge?
> As that still allows us to see an ordered flow of changes.

The problem why we can't just do as you suggest is that there's no way
to (scalably) attach accurate user information (who committed this
change) to merges like h3, which leads to backwards compatibility
issues for observation (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-775). The compromise we came
up with in OAK-775 is to maintain such information for local events
(i.e. b1->h1 for node A and b1->h2 for node B), but not for events
originating from the rest of the cluster (i.e. h1->h3 and h2->h3).


Jukka Zitting

View raw message