On 5/16/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Tobias Bocanegra
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I think this would fit fairly well with NG (I'm not sure if I've noted
> >> it anywhere, but I've always thought of NGP as being bundle-based),
> >> and we could use this as an iterative step towards it.
> > oh really? i though it's better to have very fine difference sets. for
> > example adding a new property to a "big" node, would only result in
> > 'add property' as a difference, but when you have bundles, you would
> > have to store the entire bundle as diff.
>
>
> You could do a "diff bundle", ie. one that references the previous
> revision and includes only the changes. The parent node of a modified
> property needs to be updated in the new revision in any case if we go
> with a Subversion-like structure where the entire path from a
> modification to the root node needs to be included in a revision.
>
>
> >> (Another potential iterative step could be for example storing entire
> >> bundles in the journal, and implementing a persistence manager that
> >> gets its content from the journal instead of a separate storage.)
> > ..and the changelog. so that the modifications of a transaction are
> > direclty store the the journaled persistence manager and the commit
> > would result it marking the changes as active.
>
>
> Good point! Handled correctly, that would even cover some of the
> memory issues related to large transient or directly persisted
> operations.
i think this might by a change (introduce tx aware pms) that we could
introduce independently from the 'drop property state' issue.
