Stores in scope

[Daniel Ellermann <Da...@t-online.de>]

Hello,

currently I can assign a store to a scope in the following way:

store A for scope /
store B for scope /foo

As I've seen in the code at Uri.parseUri(), nodes in scope /foo are not
using store B, but store A! I think it would be better that the scope
definition for store B overwrites the definition of store A. Below you will
find my thought as a code snipped from Uri.parseUri():

while (scopes.hasMoreElements()) {
    Scope courScope = scopes.nextScope();
    try {
        Store newStore = namespace.retrieveStore(courScope);
        if (newStore != null) {
            store = newStore;
            scope = courScope;
            // The PK in the current descriptorsStore is the
            // portion of the URI relative
            // to the Data Source.
            this.pk = uri.substring(scope.toString().length())
                      .hashCode();
        }
    } catch (ServiceConnectionFailedException e) {
      :
      :
    }
}

:
:

What's your opinion?

Danny =:-)

Re: Stores in scope

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

> Hello,
>
> currently I can assign a store to a scope in the following way:
>
> store A for scope /
> store B for scope /foo
>
> As I've seen in the code at Uri.parseUri(), nodes in scope /foo are not
> using store B, but store A! I think it would be better that the scope
> definition for store B overwrites the definition of store A. Below you
will
> find my thought as a code snipped from Uri.parseUri():

/foo/* should be mapped to B.
Everything else should be mapped to A.
If it does not happen that way, then it's a bug ...

The mapping "algorithm" is not efficient at all, and will be rewritten.

Remy