[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4940?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15581726#comment-15581726
]
Chetan Mehrotra commented on OAK-4940:
--------------------------------------
bq. Should we only collect nodeTypes though (ie not node name and path)?
type should be fine for now. Node name may be ... for e.g. if code is
interested in change in *.jsp then actual change would be in jcr:content node
of nt:file
bq. What about also collecting child nodeType to support use case where someone
is interested in a new node added (or a node removed) of a particular nodeType
(and not depend on its parent to have a particular nodeType)?
Would not that be collected today i.e. whatever new nodes gets added its type
is collected as well
> Consider collecting grand-parent changes in ChangeSet
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-4940
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4940
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Affects Versions: 1.5.12
> Reporter: Stefan Egli
> Fix For: 1.6
>
>
> At the moment the ChangeSet, which is populated by ChangeCollectorProvider (a
> Validator) during a commit, collects changed property names, as well as node
> name, node type and path of the parent (whereas _parent_ for a property
> change is its node, while for a node change is actually its parent).
> For improvements such as SLING-6163 it might be valuable to collect
> grand-parent changes (node name, node type and perhaps path) too. We could
> extend the ChangeSet with additional, explicit grand-parent sets (ie we
> should not mix them with the parent changes as that would lessen filtering
> rate)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
