jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexandru Popescu ☀" <the.mindstorm.mailingl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:43:41 GMT
On 7/20/07, Thomas Mueller <thomas.tom.mueller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> > the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a
> > Joe instead
> Ok, so the use case is:
> 1) Get session and load a contact with name 'Joe'
> 2) Update the name property from 'Joe' to 'John'
> 3) Now, query the repo for the contact using the name 'Joe'
> I would do this:
> 1) Node contact = ...getNode(...) // we have the node
> 2) contact.setProperty("name", "John")
>     contact.save()
> 3) ... query ...
> Then everything works fine. No problem.
> You _only_ have a problem if if you don't call 'save()'.
> So why exactly don't you want to call 'save' first?

Thomas, I don't think I have put the problem this way (I want or I
don't want to).
There are two sides of the story:
- the above workflow must be more clear in the spec
- people may be asking why they need to use a specific workflow, when
other persistence solutions are not requiring it.

We can definitely fix the first, but we must be prepared to have a
good answer for the 2nd too. And for the moment, frankly speaking, I
don't seem to have any other explanation than "that's what the spec
says" (or at most Jukka's explanation in this thread -- which while
valid is still complex for a RDBMS guy).

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

> Thomas

View raw message