Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Alexander Klimetschek
I think there is a use case for large flat unordered lists (using a node type with orderable = false). For example, dictionaries, where the key and value are in the properties and the node name is not really relevant, and where you don't want to create nested structures just for the sake of

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Jukka Zitting
Hi, On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Tobias Bocanegra tri...@adobe.com wrote: so for large childnode lists, a stable but uncontrollable order would be ok, although violating the spec? I wouldn't violate the spec for this. If you have an orderable node (like nt:unstructured), then the

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Felix Meschberger
Hi, Am 23.01.2012 um 10:43 schrieb Jukka Zitting: Hi, On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Tobias Bocanegra tri...@adobe.com wrote: so for large childnode lists, a stable but uncontrollable order would be ok, although violating the spec? I wouldn't violate the spec for this. If you have an

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Alexander Klimetschek
On 23.01.12 11:43, Felix Meschberger fmesc...@adobe.com wrote: Wouldn't it be such, that unordered might mean no defined but stable ordering while ordered means insertion order unless eplicitly changed ? +1 Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek Developer // Adobe (Day) // Berlin - Basel

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Michael Dürig
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Tobias Bocanegratri...@adobe.com wrote: so for large childnode lists, a stable but uncontrollable order would be ok, although violating the spec? I wouldn't violate the spec for this. If you have an orderable node (like nt:unstructured), then the repository

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-23 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2012-01-23 11:43, Felix Meschberger wrote: ... I am not sure, whether this proposal does not open a can of worms: Consider using a node for child nodes whose retrieval should be ordered by insertion order. This is currently guaranteed by switching on ordered child nodes on the parent node,

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-21 Thread Stefan Guggisberg
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Tobias Bocanegra tri...@adobe.com wrote: nt:unstructured has orderable childnodes, and we also preach to use nt:unstructured whereever you can. Also, i assume that a lot of applications benefit from node ordering (like a CMS). So I think that the majority of

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-21 Thread Tobias Bocanegra
I agree, so for large childnode lists, a stable but uncontrollable order would be ok, although violating the spec? -- toby On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Stefan Guggisberg stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Tobias Bocanegra tri...@adobe.com wrote:

[jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Thomas Mueller
Hi, The current Jackrabbit implementation uses orderable child nodes by default, meaning nodes are returned in the same order as they are created. As an example, if I create the nodes /test/c, then /test/b, and then /test/a, and then read the node list, I will get them back in that same order.

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2012-01-20 16:09, Thomas Mueller wrote: Hi, The current Jackrabbit implementation uses orderable child nodes by default, meaning nodes are returned in the same order as they are created. As an example, if I create the nodes /test/c, then /test/b, and then /test/a, and then read the node

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Thomas Mueller
Hi, I guess one problem is that the default node type, nt:unstructured, supports orderable child nodes: http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/3_Repository_Model.html#3.7.13.1%20nt:unst ructured This node type also supports client-orderable child nodes. I guess client-orderable also means insertion

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Alexander Klimetschek
On 20.01.12 16:09, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.commailto:muel...@adobe.com wrote: The current Jackrabbit implementation uses orderable child nodes by default, meaning nodes are returned in the same order as they are created. I think same order as they are created is not really orderable child

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Thomas Mueller
Hi, Isn't the current appending the simplest and fastest? No. It requires to keep two indexes: one by number, and one by name. Having only one index (by name) is about twice as fast, and needs about half the disk space / memory. Regards, Thomas

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Alexander Klimetschek
On 20.01.12 16:50, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote: Isn't the current appending the simplest and fastest? No. It requires to keep two indexes: one by number, and one by name. Having only one index (by name) is about twice as fast, and needs about half the disk space / memory. Ah, I guess

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Jukka Zitting
Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote: If we use alphabetical child node lists by default for Jackrabbit 3, then we would need to use a different default node type? Right, though I suppose there are quite a few applications that use nt:unstructured either

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Stefan Guggisberg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote: Hi, The current Jackrabbit implementation uses orderable child nodes by default, meaning nodes are returned in the same order as they are created. As an example, if I create the nodes /test/c, then /test/b, and then 

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Jukka Zitting
Hi, Thinking about this more generally, it would definitely be useful to be able to use a more efficient underlying storage for unorderable nodes. However, there still are hard use cases that require us to support orderable nodes as indicated by the type of the parent node. Thus the

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Stefan Guggisberg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote: If we use alphabetical child node lists by default for Jackrabbit 3, then we would need to use a different default node type? Right,

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Stefan Guggisberg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Thinking about this more generally, it would definitely be useful to be able to use a more efficient underlying storage for unorderable nodes. However, there still are hard use cases that require us to support

Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?

2012-01-20 Thread Tobias Bocanegra
nt:unstructured has orderable childnodes, and we also preach to use nt:unstructured whereever you can. Also, i assume that a lot of applications benefit from node ordering (like a CMS). So I think that the majority of the repositories have a lot of nodes with ordered childnodes. thus i would not