Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > The current API should be able to cope with transient modifications and > non-transient modifications. The latter can be done by obtaining a new > connection just for those changes.
IMHO a separate connection shouldn't be needed for that, just a separate commit() against the same base state. > The name reflects "transient" from JCR and should emphasis the fact that > instances of this class are - in contrast to NodeState - not Immutable. > However, we could rename this not MutableNodeState or something different if > you prefer. I'd rather not call such an interface *NodeState, as that suggests something that ISA NodeState, and thus a specialization, not a generalization of the supertype contract. BR, Jukka Zitting
