To illustrate this a bit more consider this (silly) configuration
<scope match="/files" store="simple"/>
<scope match="/files/olli/child" store="mem2"/>
If I try to move folder olli which is in the simple store it will
contain child which is not, which will make isTreeInSingleStore in
Namspace return false. In this case the macro store is not used.
Oliver
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:33:54 +0200, Oliver Zeigermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Added inexpensive scope check as proposed by Stefan.
>
> I presume this step completes the task (of adding a MacroStore option
> to Slide), could someone cross check, please?
>
> Next step will be to make this work in the default tx file store.
>
> Oliver
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:46:16 +0200, Oliver Zeigermann
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Added checks for security and locks. You could check all scopes there,
> > but if internal checking has been turned off in slide.properties
> > checks are not performed...
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:14:38 +0200, Oliver Zeigermann
> >
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:07:39 +0200, Stefan L�tzkendorf
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Can MacroStore be used if a store is composed of different stores. E.g.
> > > > if some one uses the TxFileContentStore and the JDBCStore for the meta data?
> > > > And there for, makes it sense to implement MacroStore in the
> > > > LucenePropertiesIndexer? At least MacroDelete could be supported there.
> > >
> > > You can choose which methods to implement. A store supporting delete
> > > only would be no problem. When all indices of such a store are in the
> > > same indexer, it should be no problem... Just wondering how we can
> > > find out if this is the case? How to indicate this to Slide?
> > >
> > > > Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am still struggeling how to check if all resources recursively
> > > > > moved/deleted/copied are in the same store. I will try and check
> > > > > Stefan's implementation.
> > > > If we have to iterate over the whole subtree to check permissions and
> > > > locks, than we could check that all nodes are in the same store too. We
> > > > can use source.getStore()==target.getStore() as a first guess, and
> > > > assure it while iterating?
> > >
> > > Would only be necessary if internal lock checking and security is
> > > turned on, still need something that gives us this information when it
> > > is not.
> > >
> > > I will think about this a little bit more...
> > >
> > > Oliver
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
