You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-issues@jackrabbit.apache.org by "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/05/01 14:50:17 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-781) Clarify / fix effects of MISSING_NODE
as base state of NodeBuilder
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-781?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13646544#comment-13646544 ]
Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-781:
-----------------------------------
See https://github.com/jukka/jackrabbit-oak/commit/ebf0aa60c76b1c4574b536bcfb27b233f957fba8 for an initial draft of what I had in mind. It seems to work reasonably well except for bringing back the LargeMoveIT performance issue. More work still needed.
Also note that I encountered some weird behavior when I tried to adjust the way the isModified() method works. For now in the patch it's unmodified except for a few FIXMEs that I added to point out that we probably need to revisit the implementation and its intended semantics. Perhaps best to do that in a followup issue.
> Clarify / fix effects of MISSING_NODE as base state of NodeBuilder
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-781
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-781
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: Michael Dürig
> Attachments: 0001-OAK-781-Clarify-fix-effects-of-MISSING_NODE-as-base-.patch, memorynodebuilder-1.png, OAK-781.patch
>
>
> Having a {{MISSING_NODE}} respectively a node state that returns false for its {{exists}} method as a base state of a node builder results in undefined behaviour. We need to clarify how to handle such cases for resolving OAK-766.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira