On 2/5/07, Sridhar Raman wrote: > I am using Jackrabbit 1.1. > > I am using same name siblings for the following reason: > Every DIM has a VALUES node. This VALUES node is the root for a tree > structure of VALUE nodes. Hence, when I do a query for a particular value, I > can do it using a simple query. > > I am sorry ... I didn't understand your question regarding the test case. > Let me try explaining the problem. > I have 13 VALUE nodes which are like buckets. And into these buckets, I > would be adding new VALUE nodes dynamically. eg. If the buckets were [A-D], > [E-H], and so on. I would look at the new value, find out its first letter > and create a VALUE node for it which would be added into the appropriate > bucket. > The problem I face happens when I add this new node. I am adding a node to a > particular bucket. I find it hard to understand how the indexing of a level > higher is affected. > > One more new problem I face is that after a certain number of nodes have > been added, the structure is totally gone. In fact, my dump at the end of an > import looks somewhat like this: > > /DIM > /DIM/VALS > /DIM/VALS/VALUE > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/name = [1] > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/VALUE/ > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/VALUE/name = 1.1 > /VALUE > ... > /VALUE[2] > ... > > This is really bizarre! hmm, i would guess that there's a problem in your application's code. please send your code or provide a simple test case (i.e. a small test class that demonstrates your issue), otherwise we won't be able to help you. cheers stefan > > I am running the code using version 1.2.1. I hope that solves this problem. > But any form of help, I would really appreciate it. > > Thanks in advance, > Sridhar > > On 2/4/07, Tobias Bocanegra wrote: > > > > hi sridhar, > > can you provide a test case that reproduces your problem? > > what version of jackrabbit are you using? > > > > generally, i would avoid using same name siblings since it causes > > always a lot of trouble and is not very performant. use some useful > > node name or just a simple number. > > > > regards, toby > > > > On 2/4/07, Sridhar Raman wrote: > > > I still haven't been able to tackle the problem. An additional thing > > that > > > seems to be happening is that after a certain point of time, the nodes > > get > > > added to the root (I have no idea how!). > > > > > > But can someone help me with the initial problem I had posted? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sridhar > > > > > > On 2/2/07, Sridhar Raman wrote: > > > > > > > > I have the following node structure: > > > > > > > > /DIM > > > > /DIM/VALS > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/name = [1] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[2] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[2]/name = [2] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[3] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[3]/name = [3] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[4] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[4]/name = [4] > > > > ... > > > > ... > > > > ... > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[13] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[13]/name = [13] > > > > > > > > There are multiple DIM nodes. Each DIM node has ONLY one VALS node. > > Each > > > > VALS node can have multiple VALUE nodes. Similarly, the VALUE nodes > > can have > > > > multiple children VALUE nodes. > > > > > > > > This is the problem I am facing: > > > > > > > > Initially, all the VALUE nodes (1 to 13) are empty. I add nodes into > > them > > > > as and when I get the data. But this is what happens when I add a > > child > > > > VALUE node to /DIM/VALS/VALUE. > > > > /DIM > > > > /DIM/VALS > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/name = [1] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/VALUE/ > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/VALUE/name = 1.1 > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE/name = [2] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[2] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[2]/name = [3] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[3] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[3]/name = [4] > > > > ... > > > > ... > > > > ... > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[12] > > > > /DIM/VALS/VALUE[12]/name = [13] > > > > > > > > Is this a bug? Or is this how it is supposed to behave? > > > > > > > > The consequences of such a bug are immense. > > > > Firstly, I can't do any indexing based node retrieval, as the indexes > > keep > > > > changing as and when I add children to the nodes. Despite the children > > being > > > > added at a level below. > > > > Secondly, I am also facing some lucene query exceptions when I try to > > do a > > > > query to obtain the right node.(Note: I am forced to do an XPATH > > query, as > > > > the indexes have become inconsistent) > > > > Thirdly, I am curious to find out how there can be 2 nodes with the > > same > > > > name and same index. Shouldn't that be an automatic error? > > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this? I do a simple parent.addNode(nodename, > > > > nodetype) call. And I save the session. Why does that affect the > > indexing? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Sridhar > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -----------------------------------------< 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 >--- > > > >