Deleting a revision

["Pill, Juergen" <Ju...@softwareag.com>]

Hello,

Deleting a revision is implemented in ContentImpl.remove in following way:

1) check security
2) open transaction
3) call the method removeRevisionDescriptor
4) call the method removeRevisionContent
5) close transaction

I am using milestone 4 (so the transaction handling may have moved).

I have now following problem with this implementation:

To remove the revisionContent in the TaminoStore I need to read two live
properties, so I ask the RevisionStore for this information. This returns an
exception (because it was already deleted just before).

What do you think about changing the order of deletion:
First delete the content and afterwards delete the descriptor? (in my
environment I detected no side effects).

Best regards

Juergen Pill




 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Pill, Juergen [mailto:Juergen.Pill@softwareag.com] 
Sent:	Friday, December 29, 2000 1:59 PM
To:	'slide-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
Subject:	NodeRevisionContent.getContent() bug

 << File: NodeRevisionContent.java >> Hello,

To my understanding the method "NodeRevisionContent.getContent()" is not
implemented correctly.

I have applied following changes to the class file:

1) removed the unnecessary field binaryContent
2) Implemented all 3 options in getContent()  [ content, inputStream, reader
]
3) Some minor changes in more functions to deal with the case either
content, inputStream or reader is set.
4) Implemented 2 private methods to read content from a stream and a reader.


Does this make sense. Please see attached file.

By the way: Wouldn't it be better to store the content as a byte[] instead
of a char[]. If binary data is send, this may cause problems?

Best regards and a happy new year to all of you

Juergen Pill



 <<NodeRevisionContent.java>> 

Re: Deleting a revision

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

Quoting "Pill, Juergen" <Ju...@softwareag.com>:

> Hello,
> 
> Deleting a revision is implemented in ContentImpl.remove in following
> way:
> 
> 1) check security
> 2) open transaction
> 3) call the method removeRevisionDescriptor
> 4) call the method removeRevisionContent
> 5) close transaction

Actually, I'm considering modifying the semantics of that call instead, since I 
think the "removed" revisions should be hidden instead of physically removed 
(just as CVS does). What do you think ?

Remy