Hi, Yes, I see. My patch is really just a quick hack (my idea was to avoid creating many HashMaps), but I'm not sure if it will always work correctly.
Regards, Thomas On 11/7/12 4:02 PM, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On 7.11.12 14:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think this has been discussed before (but I'm not sure): there is a >>performance problem in TreeImpl.isRemoved(). I think I found a temporary >>workaround: > >See also the fixme tag in the code: FIXME rely on underlying mechanism >to determine whether a node has been removed. (OAK-417) > >I'd like to eventually improve this by pushing this functionality down >to the NodeBuilder. See OAK-417. > >Michael
