Hi,
loosen this contract by leaving the query scope unspecified
I think that would be good. Even better would be: Add a descriptor (see Repository.getDescriptor()) QUERY_TRANSIENT_CHANGE_VISIBILITY (false for current Jackrabbit) where the behavior is defined. I would still keep in the specification that returned nodes include transient changes. Thomas On 7/23/07, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ivan, Thanks for your summary. > When discussion will cool down I will summarize it and send a feedback to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] very good. > So far it looks like I hit the honey pot, I see a few use-cases from list > members in support of an idea and none against and it bother me. I support your idea that from an API users perspective this behaviour could be desirable. This particular limitation was originally put into the spec because a lot of vendors believe that that it is hard to implement or they cannot implement it at all. So you can consider that the current specification is what most vendors can implement. The section you originally quoted is in the spec on purpose, it is not an oversight. As I mentioned I think one could suggest to loosen this contract by leaving the query scope unspecified as a compromise. Personally, just from my gut feeling I cannot see a lot of support from the vendors for your proposed strict change, but feel free to submit it anyway, and it will certainly be considered. regards, david
