Hi, 2017-09-06 23:14 GMT+02:00 Michael Dürig <[email protected]>:
> > > On 06.09.17 22:27, Jörg Hoh wrote: > >> Hi Oak-Devs >> >> I wonder about the documentation at >> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/nodestore/segmentmk.html >> >> In the section "Node records" it's stated: >> [...] >> > > Yes this is a valid statement for all versions of Oak since 1.0. > > I think you are misreading it a bit. The sentence "The main downside of > this alternative storage layout is that the ordering of child nodes is > lost." does not imply there is some ordering and after a number of nodes > there in no more ordering. It means that the implementation does not make > any guarantee regarding the ordering. > > Moreover this statement is in no way related to orderability of child > nodes in JCR. This is a different concern implemented in a layer higher up > the stack I think, that this is the misleading part. I would be great if it could be added, because lot of people are reading these pages with a JCR semantic in mind. Thanks for the clarification, I will raise a ticket and ask for an improvement. Jörg -- Cheers, Jörg Hoh, http://cqdump.wordpress.com Twitter: @joerghoh
