Thanks Emm!
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
