Hi,
Thank you for the quick reply!
Yes, I'm aware that session behaves differently in transactions ;-) The
reason for my mail is that the behavior I'm seeing currently; does not
match my expectations.
I would expect that VersionHistory.removeVersion changes are reflected
immediately in my session (in current TX) - And they seem to be, to some
extent.
If i examine the version history right after removing old versions they
are not there anymore (in same TX), but the
node.getWeakReferences(<property-name>) call still returns the properties
from the "removed versions".
The node.getWeakReferences() (no arg version) throws an "item not found"
exception, indicating that it may actually have a slightly more correct
picture of the data in the session/TX.
I would at least expect both the Node.getWeakReferences methods to behave
in the same way (currently one throws exception while the other returns
references to nodes in removed versions). - And I really hope that
VersionHistory.removeVersion changes in a TX also are reflected
immediately/consistently.
I'll start working on a test case, its not the most trivial setup with XA
transactions etc. but I really hope that this is a bug and it will/can be
fixed.
--
Chris
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:42:26 +0100, KÖLL Claus <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Some behavior inside a transaction is indeed different than without
transaction.
One thing is that session.save() will not perform immediately. It will
be saved on transaction commit.
However it can be a bug as you mentioned.
I'm not so familiar with the weak references code but could you please
create a testcase
so that we can have a look at it ..
greets
claus
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
