removing OrderedPropertyIndex

[Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>]

Hello team,

as part of OAK-3768 I removed the code of the long time deprecated
OrderedIndex and replaced it with a WARN at log level every 10000
operations.

Additionally I made the two Providers: Editor and Query with a
ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE which will automatically stop them in an
OSGi environment. So no tracking will happen at all. The index won't be
used if there.

While I think it's a good option for the query side as the provider
won't be used for each query, on the Editor side it could actually be a
good option to have it still active. The current code will only track if
there're any `type=ordered` in place.

Shall I leave it with a ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE or turn it back to
active by default?

Thoughts?

Cheers
Davide

Re: removing OrderedPropertyIndex

[Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I think you need to let the Editor be active by default:
* first: disabling it will render the entire 'warn every 10k operations'
moot
* second: this combined with OAK-3642 will create some unpleasant situations


best,
alex


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hello team,
>
> as part of OAK-3768 I removed the code of the long time deprecated
> OrderedIndex and replaced it with a WARN at log level every 10000
> operations.
>
> Additionally I made the two Providers: Editor and Query with a
> ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE which will automatically stop them in an
> OSGi environment. So no tracking will happen at all. The index won't be
> used if there.
>
> While I think it's a good option for the query side as the provider
> won't be used for each query, on the Editor side it could actually be a
> good option to have it still active. The current code will only track if
> there're any `type=ordered` in place.
>
> Shall I leave it with a ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE or turn it back to
> active by default?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers
> Davide
>
>
>