1) In my eyes the public review is there to give any feedback, to discuss
everything and to make proposals, whether they are major changes or just
little remarks.
2) I wouldn't agree that discussions about implementation details should
be
part of a public review of a specification. Sure we should keep an eye on
the implementation, it has to be done at some point. But, we talk about
JCR,
not Jackrabbit. The JCR specification shouldn't take care about
implementation details of one product (Jackrabbit), but it should find the
best way to make the specification according to people's needs and
requirements.
The difference of opinions apparently lies not in the interpretation of the
JCR spec, but in how well it will satisfy the needs of users. Those used to
the RDBMS paradigm of transaction isolation are expecting to be able to
query transient changes and get them included in the results. The JCR
approach, though well-specified it may be, is not useful enough. Having to
reset the session or save changes prior to searching is cumbersome in my
opinion. Even if it does complicate implementation it's a very useful
feature and a more 'natural' model of data access.
The solution could include a facility to set the desired isolation level for
a Session if a particular implementation used supports it.
Alex Karshakevich
