On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Martijn Hendriks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would say that SNS is worth the effort because dropping support > completely > > will give a serious migration issue for users that have deployed > repositories that > > use SNS and want to stay close to the newest Jackrabbit version. > > Agreed. Based on the comments in this thread I think we need to keep > supporting SNS. > > > > I am not into the technical details of the SNS support: what is exactly > causing > > problems and what would be needed to fix it? > > The main concerns are indexing (JCR-392) and versioning (JCR-43, > JCR-435). Quite often we also see other issues related to SNS, see for > example JCR-1167. > > I believe the technical issues could mostly (there are some tricky > corner case semantics) be resolved, but currently we're not putting > too much priority on such issues as evidenced by three of our four > oldest known issues being about same name siblings.
i don't fully agree. i'd say that the main reason is that there's currenlty not a lot of enthusiasm for tackling tricky versioning related issues ;). such issues being related to SNS is IMO just a coincidence. > One reason for > this is our basic response "same name siblings should be avoided" > (JCR-392). while i agree with the statement in general i think that the issue comment is inappropriate. > > I don't think such approach is viable in the long term, so IMHO we > need to decide whether using SNS is OK or not. If it's OK (as seems to > be the message of this thread) then we need to start treating SNS > issues more seriously and prioritize them higher than we do at the > moment. +1 cheers stefan > > We can debate about and come up with guidelines on how to best use SNS > where needed and where SNS is best avoided, but a "don't use SNS" > response to SNS bug reports is IMHO not valid. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
