Hi, On Apr 2, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Stefan Guggisberg > <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> i don't think that we should allow clients to explicitly extend the life span >> of a specific revision. this would IMO unnecessarily complicate the GC >> logic and it would allow misbehaved clients to compromise the stability >> of the mk. > > This would notably complicate things in oak-core and higher up. Any > large batch operations would have to worry about the underlying > revisions becoming unavailable unless they are continuously updated to > the latest head revision. > > I don't think allowing lease extensions would complicate garbage > collection too much. All I'm asking is that the collector should look > at the "last access time" instead of the "create time" of a revision > to determine whether it's still referenceable or not. Sounds reasonable, as long as you explicitely access the revision first, and then the nodes it contains. Things get more complicated if you'd "hang on" to some node in some revision and then expect that this revision stays alive. Regards Dominique > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
