sound good... the rest was probably a misunderstanding :-)
gruss
angela
On 2/8/13 10:39 AM, Michael Dürig wrote:
On 8.2.13 9:10, Angela Schreiber wrote:
hi michael
ok... but the subject of this thread is the behavior of nodes
upon move and as a simple test shows the behavior is the same
for both referenceable and non-referenceable nodes.
while i agree that the behavior of "same nodes" may change
due to the way we define the identifier, i would still claim
that the way we currently implement the move is not correct
and the inconsistency between new and existing nodes will be
troublesome for the reasons marcel explained.
Yes I agreed... and actually never denied that ;-)
There are now various parts to this story:
1) The intended behaviour I had in mind is questionable. See Jukka's
argument,
2) the intended behaviour I had in mind is not correctly implemented,
3) support for identifier is not there yet as you mentioned (OAK-101).
I'll first fix the obvious bugs (OAK-614 was one). Afterwards we should
agree on the "right" behaviour and implement that along side with the
open todos in OAK-101.
Michael
kind regards
angela
On 2/7/13 2:43 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
On 7.2.13 13:40, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Angela Schreiber<anch...@adobe.com>
wrote:
as far as i remember we never decided to use the path as
identifier. we said that we want to keep it as stable as
possible... for a referenceable node Node#getIdentifier
returns the UUID for a non-referenceable node it should
include the parent identifier and a relative path thing.
I think Michael was referring just to nodes that are non-referenceable
and have no referenceable ancestors. The relevant discussions are
summarized in OAK-101.
Yes indeed. Thanks for clarifying.
Michael
BR,
Jukka Zitting
