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 08:53:12 GMT
On 7/20/07, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/20/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Alexandru Popescu ? wrote:
> > > I would really appreciate if somebody would post on this thread a
> > > scenario in which the current behavior is proving helpful (and I have
> > > in mind the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a
> > > Joe instead -- frankly speaking I would be totally surprised in real
> > > life if I would be looking for my wife and getting somebody else
> > > instead :-) ).
> >
> > I don't think the current JCR behavior was specced this way because
> > there are uses cases needing it. It's simply a result of queries working
> > against the persisted state (as the workspace methods), while the
> > regular read messages don't.
>
> Also, I still don't think there are real use cases for the opposite
> requirement, i.e. having transient changes visible in search.
>

Indeed, the lack of use cases for each approach is making this part of
the spec look so fragile. And I am just trying to figure out a way to
make it more clear/simple to explain-harder to argue upon/etc.


> The real world analogue would be that you are getting married and even
> though you've already said "I do", the magistrate would still claim
> that you are not married until the proper paperwork has been
> submitted. :-)
>

He he... I guess now we have 2 valid scenarios for each of the
perspectives (though I am wondering why both are related to marriage?
:-)) ).

bests,
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.


> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>

Mime
View raw message