jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas Mueller" <thomas.tom.muel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:21:48 GMT
Hi,

> loosen this contract by leaving the query scope unspecified

I think that would be good. Even better would be: Add a descriptor
(see Repository.getDescriptor()) QUERY_TRANSIENT_CHANGE_VISIBILITY
(false for current Jackrabbit) where the behavior is defined.

I would still keep in the specification that returned nodes include
transient changes.

Thomas




On 7/23/07, David Nuescheler <david@day.com> wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Thanks for your summary.
>
> > When discussion will cool down I will summarize it and send a feedback to
> > jsr-283-comments@jcp.org.
> very good.
>
> > So far it looks like I hit the honey pot, I see a few use-cases from list
> > members in support of an idea and none against and it bother me.
>
> I support your idea that from an API users perspective this behaviour
> could be desirable.
>
> This particular limitation was originally put into the spec because
> a lot of vendors believe that that it is hard to implement or they cannot
> implement it at all. So you can consider that the current specification
> is what most vendors can implement.
> The section you originally quoted is in the spec on purpose, it is not
> an oversight.
>
> As I mentioned I think one could suggest to loosen this contract by
> leaving the query scope unspecified as a compromise.
>
> Personally, just from my gut feeling I cannot see a lot of support from
> the vendors for your proposed strict change, but feel free to submit
> it anyway, and it will certainly be considered.
>
> regards,
> david
>

Mime
View raw message