[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-533?page=comments#action_12427499 ] Paco Avila commented on JCR-533: --------------------------------
Ok, the specification is clear about Node.lock() and says that it is not neccesary to call a Node.save(). I know. But I don't know why the specification writers did this decission: a Node.lock() is very like a Node.setProperty(). Do you know what I mean? Obvious Jackrabbit is an implementatio of this especification and must follow it. I think I can close the issue, isn't it? > failing Node.lock() might leave inconsistent transient state > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: JCR-533 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-533 > Project: Jackrabbit > Issue Type: Bug > Components: locks > Affects Versions: 1.0.1 > Environment: Ubuntu Dapper > Reporter: Paco Avila > Assigned To: Stefan Guggisberg > Attachments: DummyLockAccessDenied.java, > MyAccessManagerLockAccessDenied.java > > > When I try to node.lock(true, false) a node and the lock fails due to lak of > user privilegies, the lock stay in the user transient session. If a perform a > node.refresh(false) the node still is locked in the transient session. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
