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
 the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com designates 209.85.146.183 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=qw58elt9p1YdTxfeYtXj4MSZW8VTXC1wJARSEfMAJI5AwLbOI1xEzEpM023Cg2mgYKQRdqi8dKPbIBlLuDTMHN52yxTnr2HlY9LH7duModucn0EmhRhqhuBq8M1cjp9K0qDGNwH3y0R2cOs6sdvfdDm7OMnUaDyct2ywtwPm5Es=
Message-ID: <c6f400460707221250n19783633v172838324230063c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:50:53 +0300
From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_Popescu_=E2=98=80?="
 <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
In-Reply-To: <1b0d43d00707220747h4f1b0631x8f9544f8c0c83d73@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <469F8942.70403@yourmail.com>
	 <1b0d43d00707220747h4f1b0631x8f9544f8c0c83d73@mail.gmail.com>

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
>