> > > On 21.9.16 9:14 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21.9.16 8:50 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21.9.16 8:33 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>>>>>> Pushing filters as much into Oak has many performance advantages >>>>>>> though >>>>>>>> compared to filter messages after delivery. Also Oak would easily >>>>>>>> able >>>>>>>> to support the delete use case described above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> In all cases, always, guaranteed? >>>>> >>>>> For some definition of "all cases, always, guaranteed": yes ;-) >>>> >>>> :) So there is no compaction, never? >>> >>> There isn't if you configure it that way. It's up to you. >>> >>> But this is completely irrelevant here. If compaction would cause events >>> to get lost, there is nothing you could do about it in Sling. Regardless >>> whether you implement an ad-hoc DYI filter in Sling or use Oak filters. >>> >> I agree. >> >> Just to clarify, if I delete "/libs/foo" I get oak observation events >> for all nodes that where under /foo with the removed properties of each >> node, right? > > No, just for the root of the removed tree. > > See > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1459?focusedCommentId=13911484&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13911484 > > ah..memories :)
ok, but that proves my point that glob filtering does not work for remove Carsten > ;-) > > Michael > >> >> Carsten >> >> >> > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
