jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex K" <seldomu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:13:42 GMT
> 1) In my eyes the public review is there to give any feedback, to discuss
> everything and to make proposals, whether they are major changes or just
> little remarks.
> 2) I wouldn't agree that discussions about implementation details should
> be
> part of a public review of a specification. Sure we should keep an eye on
> the implementation, it has to be done at some point. But, we talk about
> JCR,
> not Jackrabbit. The JCR specification shouldn't take care about
> implementation details of one product (Jackrabbit), but it should find the
> best way to make the specification according to people's needs and
> requirements.

The difference of opinions apparently lies not in the interpretation of the
JCR spec, but in how well it will satisfy the needs of users. Those used to
the RDBMS paradigm of transaction isolation are expecting to be able to
query transient changes and get them included in the results. The JCR
approach, though well-specified it may be, is not useful enough. Having to
reset the session or save changes prior to searching is cumbersome in my
opinion. Even if it does complicate implementation it's a very useful
feature and a more 'natural' model of data access.
The solution could include a facility to set the desired isolation level for
a Session if a particular implementation used supports it.

Alex Karshakevich

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message