Re: Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

updated documentation with the 2 points mentioned below at revision 1785128. On 24/02/17 11:40, "Angela Schreiber" wrote: >Hi Chetan > >Thanks a lot for your input! >In fact I looked at the PropertyStateValue implementation and spotted the >usage of the internal string

Re: Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

Hi Chetan Created OAK-5838 to keep track of the topics discussed here. Kind regards Angela On 24/02/17 11:56, "Chetan Mehrotra" wrote: >On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Angela Schreiber >wrote: >>

Re: Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Angela Schreiber wrote: > maybe this is > another indication that we should think about having an implementation > with plugins.memory and deal with the binary topic there. +1 Then we can go with current fix (and also merge to 1.6) and later

Re: Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

Hi Chetan Thanks a lot for your input! In fact I looked at the PropertyStateValue implementation and spotted the usage of the internal string representation. However, for the Restriction case I could not come up with a use case that would involve a binary value. The supported restrictions we are

Re: Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

Changes look fine however one aspect might cause issue RestrictionImpl#hashCode -> PropertyValues#hashCode -> PropertyStateValue#hashCode private String getInternalString() { StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); Iterator iterator = getValue(Type.STRINGS).iterator();

Merging OAK-5784 into 1.6.1

hi oak-devs i would like to merge another improvement into the 1.6.1 branch: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5784 in addition to additional tests i run the AceCreationTest benchmark and attached the results to the issue. however, having some extra pair of eyes would be appreciated in