On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 18.12.12 14:43, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> There is no use for a journal which is not accurate. After all, if we >>> consider implementing rebase (OAK-464) on top of the journal, it has to >>> be accurate. >> >> >> Yes, I think we should have a consistent journal, if we have a journal. >> >> But the question is how close the journal has to match the original >> commit, specially "move" and "copy" operations. >> >> So, do "move" and "copy" operations need to be preserved, or can they be >> converted to "add node" / "remove node"? > > > Now we are getting somewhere: This is exactly the original topic of OAK-464. > If the Microkernel converts moves to add/remove, implementing rebase on top > of that results in moves of big sub trees to become *very* expensive.
IIRC we didn't consider efficient move operations a design goal. i guess we can live with non-optimized move operations. cheers stefan > > Michael > >> >> >> Regards, >> Thomas >> >> >
