jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davide Maestroni <davide.maestr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Recursive child versioning
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:52:25 GMT
Hi Alex,

I did another test removing the node B, so the structure became like this:

A (mix:versionable, nt:unstructured)
      ^
      |
C (mix:versionable, nt:unstructured)
      ^
      |
D (nt:file)
      ^
      |
E (nt:resource)

When I created a version of A, with the same number of files under C, it
took only few seconds and the repository size did not increase.
I'm even more confused now about the expected behavior of VERSION opv. Can
you throw some light on it?

Thanks a lot,

Davide


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Davide Maestroni <
davide.maestroni@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> what I see is that each time the file D (along with its data) is copied in
> the new version of node A. I understand that no diff mechanism is employed
> when applying COPY opv, so it is ok that the node B and all its properties
> are copied in the new version of A (since B is not versionable and the COPY
> behavior applies instead of VERSION), but I expected only the version ID of
> node C to be copied, not the entire sub-tree. What happens instead, is that
> on calling VersionManager.checkin(A) a new copy of the whole tree from A to
> E is made.
>
> In my use case I have hundreds of files under C, and changing a property of
> A, and then creating a new version of it, may take several minutes.
> Moreover, I can observe the size of the repository (i.e. the number of bytes
> in the home directory) to quickly increase, each time of roughly the sum of
> the bytes of all the files under C. And that is an undesired behavior. So
> please tell me if I'm doing something wrong or my understanding of the
> specifications is not correct.
>
> Regards,
>
> Davide
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Alexander Klimetschek <aklimets@day.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 22:02, Davide Maestroni
>> <davide.maestroni@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...what I expect when versioning the node A is that D and E are
>> > not copied, but it is not what I observe.
>>
>> What exactly do you observe?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Klimetschek
>> alexander.klimetschek@day.com
>>
>
>

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