[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-387?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13479915#comment-13479915
]
Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-387:
-----------------------------------
bq. additional coupling
We can avoid that with a similar mechanism as we're using with the namespace
and node type registries: Instead of having a direct {{ContentSessionImpl}}
reference in {{RootImpl}}, we could add a protected {{checkStatus()}} method
that by default does nothing, but gets overridden in an anonymous subclass in
{{ContentSessionImpl}}.
> Clarify behavior/state of Root and Tree after calling ContentSession#close()
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-387
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-387
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: angela
>
> quickly discussed this topic with jukka today in the office.
> as far as i know the API contract does currently not specify what happens
> to (the state of) a Root or Tree once the ContentSession has been closed.
> if i am not mistaken, the current implementation would just loose
> the permissions that were granted to the original subject... but that's
> rather a coincidence (and i didn't test it to verify that's really the case)
> possible solutions could be:
> - upon session closure the root/tree becomes invalid (invalidstate) and throws
> - the root/tree are still valid but doesn't have the original permissions
> any more -> default permissions for empty-subject would apply
> - ...
> whatever solution we may prefer in the end, i think that API contract should
> state the expected behavior (even if it was "undefined") and we should have
> tests verifying the current implementation does what we think it should do.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
