[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2413?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14355007#comment-14355007
]
Michael Dürig commented on OAK-2413:
------------------------------------
Committed improved Javadoc at http://svn.apache.org/r1665571.
[~anchela], could you have a look at the implementation of
{{PrivilegeValidator.childNodeChanged}} to see whether it assumes there are
indeed changes? If so, we should fix this.
> Clarify Editor.childNodeChanged()
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-2413
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2413
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Marcel Reutegger
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.2
>
>
> The current contract for {{Editor.childNodeChanged()}} does not specify if
> this method may also be called when the child node did not actually change.
> The method {{NodeStateDiff.childNodeChanged()}} explicitly states that there
> may be such calls. Looking at the implementation connecting the two classes,
> {{EditorDiff.childNodeChange()}} simply calls the editor without checking
> whether the child node did in fact change.
> I think we either have to change the {{EditorDiff}} or update the contract
> for the Editor and adjust implementations. E.g. right now, PrivilegeValidator
> (implements Editor), assumes a call to {{childNodeChange()}} indeed means the
> child node changed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
