Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com> wrote: > as stated in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-606 > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-607 > the current behavior is IMO inconsistent between new and existing > nodes and pretty strange from a JCR API consumer point of view. > > since i missed the fact that this discussion was about Nodes > as well i would like to express my concerns and disagreement > with what may have looked like lazy consensus.
Fair enough, we can revisit the discussion. Do you have examples of where the new behavior would be troublesome for existing code (not just new test cases)? The assumption from the earlier discussion was that such cases should be pretty rare and easy to fix if needed. If that assumption is incorrect, then we obviously need to rethink the solution. To rehash the earlier discussion, the rationale for the new behavior is to avoid having to use weak references for keeping track of live node instances just so that their paths can be updated in the rare case when they get moved around. Even though this now mostly works in Jackrabbit 2.x, the relevant code is pretty complex, took years to debug and probably still hides a few potential deadlocks. So if possible, I'd really like to avoid having to do this in Oak. BR, Jukka Zitting
