On 04/02/2010 10:08 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > In XWiki(Hibernate|Jcr)Store#saveXWikiDoc(), the attachement list is > persisted, but the attachement contents are not persisted. > A) I would like to take care of also persisting attachment contents when > these contents are loaded and marked dirty > (XWikiAttachmentContent#isContentDirty() == true). > > Why I would like to change this ? > > 1) I see no use case that would have to persist reference to an attachment > and drop its content at the same time, which create records with a size > field set to n bytes, while the attachment is 0 or m bytes. > 2) When for example an XWikiDocument#copy() is followed by an > XWiki#saveDocument() (on the newly created document), without also calling > XWikiDocument#saveAllAttachements(), the cache store contains the documents > with all their attachments contents, while the DB has not really persisted > these contents. > 3) In XWikiHibernateAttachmentStore#saveAttachmentContent(), the default > is to persist the document, this is not consistent with the document not > doing the same in reverse. (I would have better understand that persisting > attachment contents does not persist the document.)
I don't like this either. I think there's an issue I created some time ago, but Jira is down right now so I can't find it. > 4) isContentDirty is properly maintained, and currently it is nearly > unused, making the false impression that attachments content are persisted > properly > 5) This issue is invisible in normal XWiki usage, since we take care of > saving attachments contents to avoid it everywhere, for example > in XWiki#copyDocument(), attachments contents are saved "manually". > 6) As a application developer, using the internal API in groovy, my > collegue has missed it, and we have loose production data, since during > testing, the cache has always hide the issue. I really dislike API that > could introduce inconsistencies in the DB and moreover when you loose large > amount of data. +1 > B) This change has no real impact on any code that would take care of saving > the attachments separatly, it will just be saved twice, isContentDirty() > currently only prevent useless archiving. This could be optimized by not > saving contents as well when it is not dirty, but I do not want a negative > vote on the rest for just this. So please vote this as B) I'm not sure that this is really a problem. As far as I've seen, all code that manually saves attachments also resets isContentDirty to false, so (most) manually saved attachments won't get saved again, > C) I also would like to optimize existing internal usage, removing useless > call to saveAttachmentContent() in XWiki.copyDocument() for example. This > could have an impact on a custom store that does not take care of saving > attachments contents while saving documents. I doubt many user has such a > store and release notes could mention this incompatibility. +1 > This is my +1 for A) B) and C) > > Denis > -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
