jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:21:15 GMT
IvanLatysh wrote:
> ...
>  >>Because that, I think, would not be sufficient for some queries 
> possible in
>  >>JCR 2.0.
> Can you please provide an example of such query?

I would think it could happen as soon as there's a join in the query. 
Part of the query will evaluate to false in the persistent state, so the 
node will not be included in the result set. However, to re-evaluate the 
query again on nodes changed in transient storage, you would have to 
re-access the whole persisted state.

>   At the end consistence is more important. Even if query run against 
> persistence state only without taking into account transient state is 
> should return persistent state.
>   But now query run against persistent state and return transient state, 
> that is totally confusing.

It has been stated before that you can easily avoid that by either 
calling save() before, or doing the query on a separate session without 
pending changes.

Best regards, Julian

Mime
View raw message