On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Bart van der Schans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Bart van der Schans >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> We running into a (potential) issue with same name siblings and >>> authorization and I would like to have some feedback before we try to >>> fix this (if needed at all). >> >> Your problem boils down to having "same name siblings" and >> "authorization" in the same sentence, or perhaps even having same name >> siblings in the first place. You're probably better off if you try to >> avoid the SNS feature entirely. > > We are very aware of this, but unfortunately we are dealing with a bit > of legacy here :-( > >>> Which is a bit odd, because how can the session know there is more >>> than one item sibling? Does anybody knows what the spec has to say >>> about this? >> >> The spec leaves this open by explicitly allowing access control to >> leave gaps in the SNS sequence. It's not an elegant solution, but >> AFAIUI nobody really considered such interactions when the SNS feature >> was specified (IIUC it came up just as a logical consequence of the >> XML import feature). > > Ah, thanks Jukka and Stefan for the quick replies. > > So the "compacts indices" mode for SNS is also allowed (as stated in > paragraph $22.5), but I suspect that may take quite some effort to > implement this in the current code base. And even then it probably > will come at the cost of some performance.
i would guess that implementing session-local index compacting would result in pretty nasty code. apart from that i don't see any benefit in doing so as the current behavior is clearly spec-compliant. cheers stefan > > Regards, > Bart
