> So, this could result in a save on P that initially succeeds but > ultimately fails, because the concurrent one on Q wins? I'm wondering > how this could be reflected to an MK client: if a save corresponds to > a MK commit call that immediately returns a new revision ID, would you > suggest that the mentioned algorithm adds a "shadow" commit (leading > to a new head revision ID) on P, that effectively reverts the > conflicting save on P?
yes, I think that's a reasonable approach. if a mechanism like this is used it should happen automatically but it doesn't have to be magically. that is, a client should be able to reconstruct the process. regards marcel
