Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 23891 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2006 13:11:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Dec 2006 13:11:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 73486 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2006 13:11:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 73460 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2006 13:11:43 -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 73451 invoked by uid 99); 15 Dec 2006 13:11:43 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:11:43 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of michael.neale@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.235 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.235] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.235) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:11:33 -0800 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i22so365785wra for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:11:12 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=bI5lhAwcVyy5QfREViTvzjL2wYb/oQ/4JFHYv1lLj6wXZciqIaHaqSRL3zh5VbfM0FWvVepvN59/7Az4pEJcwRlwYm/vHo03doePug5mcsh6nNLkT/iM3WeAAcbLVk7TvdlUHb71dTC06pA0mmE7mLSOF02rhcI8ALGO5WwTfQg= Received: by 10.90.88.13 with SMTP id l13mr780660agb.1166188272767; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:11:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.31.1 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:11:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <96ab3ced0612150511l3c5c893cw1d51ab1cbac5271d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:11:12 +0000 From: "Michael Neale" To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Non-orderable child nodes In-Reply-To: <7878698.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_45175_33548969.1166188272718" References: <7864219.post@talk.nabble.com> <90a8d1c00612140111k7bc63bb7o8933c6b33e2266f9@mail.gmail.com> <7878698.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_45175_33548969.1166188272718 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline no in jackrabbit as of NOW, but in future, or with another JCR implementation, could well make a difference. On 12/14/06, James Hang wrote: > > > So there's no real benefit on making child nodes non-orderable, e.g. no > performance gains? > > > Stefan Guggisberg wrote: > > > > On 12/14/06, James Hang wrote: > >> > >> How does Jackrabbit handle non-orderable child nodes? e.g. when you > call > >> Node.getNodes() on a non-orderable node, does it return the nodes in a > >> random order? Can the order change at any time? > > > > it's implementation dependant according to "4.4.2 Non-orderable Child > > Nodes" > > of the jsr 170 spec. in jackrabbit the order of non-orderable child > nodes > > is preserved, internally there's no difference between orderable and > > non-orderable child nodes. > > > > cheers > > stefan > > > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://www.nabble.com/Non-orderable-child-nodes-tf2817547.html#a7864219 > >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Non-orderable-child-nodes-tf2817547.html#a7878698 > Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------=_Part_45175_33548969.1166188272718--