Hi, On 8/29/07, Martijn Hendriks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a nice idea! But wouldn't it be confusing that one can get a Node > object through the nextNode() method which does not exist in the > repository anymore?
The search index should always be in sync with the persistent state, so such situations should not happen. > Would this proposal also make the Node.getNodes(String pattern) method > less expensive? As I gather now all infrastructure for the child nodes > is created but might not be used if the child nodes name does not fit > the pattern. All the node iterators should become faster for clients that just want to traverse a tree without looking at properties or typing information. Currently the names and identifiers of all child nodes are stored as a part of the parent node state, so there would be no need to immediately retrieve the child node states when performing calls like Node.getNodes() or Node.getNodes(Strin pattern). BR, Jukka Zitting
