Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 42667 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2006 16:36:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2006 16:36:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 62164 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2006 16:36:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 62151 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2006 16:36:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 62142 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2006 16:36:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:36:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.21.53.35] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (72.21.53.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:36:50 -0700 Received: from [72.21.53.38] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GDONZ-0006ej-Gp for users@jackrabbit.apache.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:36:29 -0700 Message-ID: <5835970.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:36:29 -0700 (PDT) From: JavaJ To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about versioning In-Reply-To: <3a9670a0608152049x31296d63ua21fdff218919afa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <5824370.post@talk.nabble.com> <3a9670a0608152030k6ea5babeseda83fe75b54bef0@mail.gmail.com> <3a9670a0608152049x31296d63ua21fdff218919afa@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes, I was reading the spec last night and it cleared up a lot of things. To answer my own questions: - NodeC and NodeA have seperate version histories - if NodeC is declared as onParentVersion=COPY, the its state will be persisted as part of the "frozen" node of NodeA when it is versioned. - checking out NodeA does not automatically check out NodeC. you will need to check it out seperately if you wanted to modify it. I think this is correct. Can someone confirm? Also, I assume Jackrabbit conforms to this spec pretty accurately? Thanks. Doug Douglass-2 wrote: > > Amending my prior post, the spec is probably the best reference for the > on-parent-version values. > > On 8/15/06, Doug Douglass wrote: >> >> I can't answer all of your questions, and I'm looking for a some decent >> docs in this area that bridge the gap between the Jackrabbit CND docs and >> the specification, but in regards to whether the new version of NodeA >> will >> have child nodes NodeB and NodeC, this depends on how the child nodes are >> declared in the NodeTypeDefinition for NodeA. >> >> There are 6 "on-parent-version" attributes for both child nodes and >> properties that control the behavior when a new version of the parent >> node >> is created: >> >> 1. COPY >> 2. VERSION >> 3. INITIALIZE >> 4. COMPUTE >> 5. IGNORE >> 6. ABORT >> >> I have yet to find a good source of docs for the meaning of each of the >> above, but I'm pretty confident that if you wanted the new version of >> NodeA >> to have the same NodeB as the prior version of NodeA, then the >> declaration >> of NodeB in the NodeTypeDefinition for NodeA should contain COPY. >> >> HTH and if I'm wrong or anyone has pointers to good docs PLEASE enlighten >> me. >> >> Doug >> >> >> On 8/15/06, JavaJ < ponfar99@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I have a question about versioning. >> > >> > NodeA has 2 child nodes NodeB and NodeC >> > NodeA and NodeC is versionable. NodeB is not. >> > >> > If I check out NodeA, can I start making changes to NodeA and all of >> its >> > children, including NodeC? Then save and checkin NodeA? If so, will I >> > get >> > a Version that includes NodeA, NodeB and NodeC? Or do I need to >> > checkout >> > and version NodeC seperately? e.g. NodeA and NodeC have completely >> > seperate >> > version histories that don't include each other? >> > >> > >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> > http://www.nabble.com/Question-about-versioning-tf2112332.html#a5824370 >> > Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users forum at Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question-about-versioning-tf2112332.html#a5835970 Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users forum at Nabble.com.