hi walter,
On 8/10/05, Walter Raboch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> > the correct beahviour should be:
> >
> > s0 : Read the rootNode
> > s1 : Read the rootNode
> > s0 : Modify rootNode : remove testnode-s0
> > s1 : Modify rootNode : remove testnode-s1 & save() -->ERROR the rootNode
>
> there should be no error at this point, s0 has not been saved yet.
absolutely correct, i haven't been careful enough when i copy/pasted it,
sorry for that. let me try again;)
s0 : Read the rootNode
s1 : Read the rootNode
s0 : Modify rootNode : remove testnode-s0
s1 : Modify rootNode : remove testnode-s1
s0 : save()
s1 : save() -->InvalidItemStateException since the root node has been externally
modifiied (by s0); s1's 'copy' has become stale as a result
>
> > s0 : save()
>
> now there should be an error since s1 saved its state before
>
> > s1 : save() -->InvalidItemStateException since the root node has been
> > externally
> > modifiied (by s0) is has s1's 'copy' has become stale as a result
>
> I dont think that here should be an error, since the last saved
> (commited) version of the rootNode is from s1 and the changes from s0
> has not been valid and not commited. so the nodes state has not changed.
>
> > we'll fix that asap.
>
> Thanks for the discussion. Now I unterstand jackrabbits way of doing.
> But in my opinion adding child nodes should not alter the parent node
> itself. Just changing some properties is a state change.
i don't agree. see 7.1.4 Adding Nodes in the jsr 170 spec:
<quote>
In order to save a newly added node, save must be called either on the
Session, or on the new node's parent or higher-order ancestor
(grandparent, etc.).
</quote>
>
> Furthermore there should be an error just in the case, that both updates
> overwrite the changes of the other -> to prevent lost update problems.
> In my example code it´s not the case, so I would prefer no error at all.
> What do you think?
AFAIK lost updates did never happen. your testcase failed in the right
situations
but threw the wrong exceptions. i committed a fix for that problem yesterday.
IMO it now works as it should according to the jsr 170 spec.
cheers
stefan
>
> cheers,
> Walter
>
>
