[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-781?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13646666#comment-13646666
]
Michael Dürig commented on OAK-781:
-----------------------------------
bq. With that in mind, it occurs me that what we'd really need here is a
separate abstraction for explicitly tracking the connectedness state of a
builder.
Good point! Since neither having this in {{MemoryNodeBuilder}} nor in
{{MutableNodeState}} is satisfactory this is a strong indication that we need a
separate abstraction. I like the idea with the state pattern. I think this
makes tracking the connectedness state as explicit as it should be.
> Clarify / fix effects of MISSING_NODE as base state of NodeBuilder
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-781
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-781
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: Michael Dürig
> Attachments:
> 0001-OAK-781-Clarify-fix-effects-of-MISSING_NODE-as-base-.patch,
> memorynodebuilder-1.png, memorynodebuilder-2.png, OAK-781.patch
>
>
> Having a {{MISSING_NODE}} respectively a node state that returns false for
> its {{exists}} method as a base state of a node builder results in undefined
> behaviour. We need to clarify how to handle such cases for resolving OAK-766.
--
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
