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 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:50:53 GMT
On 7/22/07, David Nuescheler <david@day.com> wrote:
> Hi Ivan et al,
>
> I would like to make sure that I understand your intention.
>
> (a) JCR should not mandate the scope of query wrt the transient space
> (b) Jackrabbit should implement isolation differently
>
> In case you are interested in option (a) then I would like to suggest to
> send this to jsr-283-comments@jcp.org
>

David is that email address working as a mailing list? Or is it just a
normal email address to the group members? I would definitely be
interested (as I already showed in this thread) to continue the
discussion and I just want to make sure it is possible to do so if we
redirect this one to the pointed address.

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

> I guess that from the discussion on this list it is relatively evident
> though that there are a number of arguments that can be made for either
> way implementing or using a content repository.
>
> I think you have a point that if one can argue both ways it probably
> makes sense to allow both implementations in the specification, and
> therefore rewrite the section you quoted in the beginning of this thread.
>
> Again, please feel free to suggest that to jsr-283-comments@jcp.org
>
> If you comments are more targeted at (b) I think
> dev@jackrabbit.apache.org is the correct audience, and a patch would
> certainly be a good start ;).
> Personally, I believe that the isolation levels problem particularly when
> it comes to things like ranking in full-text search or transient modifications
> that do not satisfy nodetype constraints can become more tricky than
> expected.
>
> regards,
> david
>

Mime
View raw message