On 6/15/11 11:17 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/15/11 2:45 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
-1
Please revert these changes. Sufficient consideration has not been
given to these matters which have been around for years. We need more
time to discuss these matters.
This check is just not good enough, even if we want to detect cycles when
adding aliases : it does not check anything but a cycle from an alias and a
direct ascendant.
I removed it because of its deficiencies, not because I wanted to remove the
check. If we decide to implement a check when creating an alias, we will add
a correct detection mechanism, trust me on that.
OK understood. I thought we were going to change this entire policy
regarding how we deal with aliases. Then this is no problem at all.
Adding a better check to prevent these cycles will be good. If we
don't do this we might seriously screw up search and the problems
generated will be very interesting if aliasDereferencing is enabled.
I just don't want to take such a step without guaranteeing we're not
going break search handling.
As I said to Alex on IM, I haven't closed the JIRA that relates the pb.
I don't consider the problem fixed by the check removal. It's an
intermediary step.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
