[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1552?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12591700#action_12591700
]
Jukka Zitting commented on JCR-1552:
------------------------------------
I don't understand why any of these examples should fail with an
InvalidItemStateException. It would make sense if we supported higher isolation
levels where already getProperty() would "freeze" the property state, but since
we don't do that (and I think it's good that we don't) I fail to see the
benefit of this.
> Concurrent conflicting property creation sometimes doesn't fail
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-1552
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1552
> Project: Jackrabbit
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: jackrabbit-core
> Affects Versions: core 1.4.2
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Assignee: Stefan Guggisberg
> Fix For: 1.5
>
>
> The following test prints "Success":
> Session s1 = ...
> Session s2 = ...
> s1.getRootNode().setProperty("b", "0"); // init with zero
> s1.getRootNode().setProperty("b", (String) null); // delete
> s1.save();
> s1.getRootNode().setProperty("b", "1");
> s2.getRootNode().setProperty("b", "2");
> s1.save();
> s2.save();
> System.out.println("Success");
> However if the line marked "... // delete" is commented out,
> it fails with the following exception:
> javax.jcr.InvalidItemStateException:
> cafebabe-cafe-babe-cafe-babecafebabe/{}b: the item cannot be saved
> because it has been modified externally.
> at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.core.ItemImpl.getTransientStates(ItemImpl.java:246)
> at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.ItemImpl.save(ItemImpl.java:928)
> at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.SessionImpl.save(SessionImpl.java:849)
> It should fail in all cases. If we decide it shouldn't fail, it needs to be
> documented.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
