On 7/20/07, Thomas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,> the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a > Joe instead Ok, so the use case is: 1) Get session and load a contact with name 'Joe' 2) Update the name property from 'Joe' to 'John' 3) Now, query the repo for the contact using the name 'Joe' I would do this: 1) Node contact = ...getNode(...) // we have the node 2) contact.setProperty("name", "John") contact.save() 3) ... query ... Then everything works fine. No problem. You _only_ have a problem if if you don't call 'save()'. So why exactly don't you want to call 'save' first?
Thomas, I don't think I have put the problem this way (I want or I don't want to). There are two sides of the story: - the above workflow must be more clear in the spec - people may be asking why they need to use a specific workflow, when other persistence solutions are not requiring it. We can definitely fix the first, but we must be prepared to have a good answer for the 2nd too. And for the moment, frankly speaking, I don't seem to have any other explanation than "that's what the spec says" (or at most Jukka's explanation in this thread -- which while valid is still complex for a RDBMS guy). bests, ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p.
Thomas
