On 7/20/07, Hendrik Beck (camunda) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Alexandru Popescu ☀ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I would really appreciate if somebody would post on this thread a
> scenario in which the current behavior is proving helpful (and I have
> in mind the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a
> Joe instead -- frankly speaking I would be totally surprised in real
> life if I would be looking for my wife and getting somebody else
> instead :-) ).
Uhm, which behaviour do you want to see? In one of our projects we use JCR to enrich our business
objects (like Products for a web shop) with content data. This content is shown on the web site.
The employees edit this content concurrently with an application, every one on its one. They make
changes to different products and when they are finished, they persist these changes by invoking
save(). As long as they didn't do that, the people who search and browse the web site only see the
persistant state, i.e. the data that is really stored "forever". It would be crucial if
people would see all the transient states on the websites and furthermore it would be wrong.
Invoking save is something like saying "ok, now I am finished, now I want everybody else to
see my changes".
On the other hand as long as they haven't pressed save(), they still want to
see their own changes, that's also obvious. But they should only see their own
changes.
So for me the only thing that could be a problem is, that an employee didn't
press save() and wants to search the repository. In that case they could get
results that differ from their local changes. But I would say, if there are any
good technical (Jackrabbit-) reasons, that's ok. Then they just have to save
their changes and then everything's right again. But in our use cases that
doesn't really happen. People rather use the search to find the nodes they want
to change. Then they select these nodes, change them, press save() and that's
it.
Actually I thought that's one of the most common use cases JCR is used for but
apparanty not?!
Hendrik I am afraid you are confusing the visibility over different
sessions (you are discussing about this one), and the transient state
inside the same session (which is the topic discussed in here).
bests,
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Popescu ☀ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Isolation level inconsistency.
>
> On 7/20/07, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hendrik Beck (camunda) wrote:
> > > One more thing I want to say:
> > >
> > > "again you're proposing a major change to JCR."
> > >
> > > "Maybe it's just me, but I have no idea how that could be implemented
> > > efficiently, *in
> > > particular* if you don't have the luxury to develop that functionality
> from
> > > scratch."
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > That's right. The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was
> > that this is a major change to *JCR 1.0*.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Actually, I wasn't talking about Jackrabbit either.
> >
> > If JCR 2.0 adds requirements that are unlikely to be implemented, that's
> > IMHO a problem. Either you'll end up with no implementations, or with
> > broken implementations (with respect to that feature).
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >
> >
>
> I agree with both you comments here. However, I do feel that the OP
> may be right (I confess that I was not facing this situation so far,
> but this is probably because my app is a bit different).
>
> I would really appreciate if somebody would post on this thread a
> scenario in which the current behavior is proving helpful (and I have
> in mind the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a
> Joe instead -- frankly speaking I would be totally surprised in real
> life if I would be looking for my wife and getting somebody else
> instead :-) ).
>
> bests,
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
