Hi, I would probably initially only implement "strict conflict detection" in the MongoMK, if it's not already implemented in that way(?).
I don't see a need currently that both MicroKernel implementations behave in the exact same way, until we have a clear picture what the best solution is. Regards, Thomas On 12/18/12 3:25 PM, "Thomas Mueller" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >>1) Make the definition of conflicts sufficiently strong to exclude such >>cases. That's Tom's proposal from this Thread. > >Ah, OK, I thought you meant it could still be a problem even with my >proposal. > >I guess failing on (node-level-) conflicts would be the most simple >solution, as a start. It would also simplify checking node type >constraints within oak-core I guess (if we actually want to have strict >checks). > >At the beginning, I would probably not try to merge conflicts in oak-core, >and simply fail the commit. If it turns out to be a problem in reality, we >could still change it. Unless, of course, we already know it's a problem? > >>2) Allow inconsistent journals. > >I guess we don't want that. But the question is how close the journal has >to match the original commit, specially "move" and "copy" operations. If >they need to be preserved (do they?), then it's complicated. > >Regards, >Thomas >
