Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <7361482.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:49:46 -0800 (PST)
From: James Hang <jhang@bea.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Versioning question
In-Reply-To: <8be731880611150125l120d3930gb2f25fef657d755@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7350349.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <8be731880611150125l120d3930gb2f25fef657d755@mail.gmail.com>


What if I don't want T2 and T3 to have version history at all?  So that I can
modify them as independent non-versionable nodes (no checkout/checkin
required).  Is this possible to do?  I guess maybe what might make more
sense in my case is if I just put T2 and T3 nodes outside of the T1
hierarchy and just have a references to them....


Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
> 
> yes, there is: you need to make them: OnParentVersion = VERSION.
> this means, that their existence is recorded in version of T1 but not
> there contents (if they are mix:versionable, also) i know the
> versioning section in jsr170 is a bit confusing, but after having read
> it 20 times, i start to understand it :-)
> 
> regards, toby
> 
> 
> On 11/15/06, James Hang <jhang@bea.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question about versioning, in particular how you would create
>> child
>> nodes of a versioned node that are not versioned with the parent and can
>> be
>> modified entirely independent of its parent.
>>
>> For example, let's say I have a type T1. Nodes of T1 can have child nodes
>> of
>> type T2.  Nodes of type T2 can have child nodes of type T3.
>>
>> So, my node tree will be like this:
>>
>> T1
>> |_
>>     T2 ...
>>     |_
>>         T3 ...
>>
>> Now, let's say that I want to make it so that when I create a new version
>> of
>> T1, I don't want T2 or its descendents to be part of the state that
>> version.
>> One way I can do this by making the onParentVersion attribute of T2 and
>> T3
>> to be IGNORE.  However, in order to modify the T3 nodes, I will still
>> have
>> to checkout/checkin a new version of its T1 ancestor.  Is there a way to
>> avoid this?
>>
>> I understand that adding/deleting T2 nodes will have to require checking
>> out
>> T1, since the state of T1 will have to be modified.  But it seems like
>> you
>> should be able to modify T2 properties and add/delete T3 nodes without
>> having to do a checkout.  Essentially, is there a way to make T2/T3 nodes
>> act like non-versionable standalone nodes, even though they are part of
>> the
>> node hierarchy of a versionable node?
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Versioning-question-tf2633512.html#a7350349
>> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------< tobias.bocanegra@day.com >---
> Tobias Bocanegra, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel
> T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97
> -----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Versioning-question-tf2633512.html#a7361482
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.