Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.249 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=FzaRhDafneY1RVVdBmBxDkMUNWcbw5hnw2AZWfeBe0EvCmTum6v23O6cPbXfZlJOrTc7iedslxSWaMmeqDLWXyVE/XGZjQYSrX/64h6Sk/9aCrlDqUAOVuObIztzYe25BBl/e5ehaJ5+4viXnNttC6qodXgIEMrUltzjQ/qzR4Y=
Message-ID: <510143ac0707200140g4d2ac26chbf8df75e8ab085eb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:40:48 +0300
From: "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
In-Reply-To: <46A07239.2060901@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070719233057.7B70810FB051@herse.apache.org>
	 <46A06850.4050303@gmx.de>
	 <c6f400460707200118r27425742sc3063f038d217779@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A07239.2060901@gmx.de>

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.

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. :-)

BR,

Jukka Zitting