Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, the normal update cycle is *getting* the content, modifying it, then > writing it back. To be useful, that's the sequence of operations that needs > to be supported, right?
Yes, and we of course support that. What's debatable though is whether and how Jackrabbit should implement database-like isolation levels or if it's OK for reads and writes from multiple sessions to be interleaved. Personally I'd prefer if Jackrabbit did *not* throw exceptions on such write conflicts, and instead automatically merged the changes from multiple sessions. If a client wants or needs better isolation levels, it should use JCR locks or some other explicit synchronization mechanism. BR, Jukka Zitting
