"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : "jason.greene(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | I don't think there is a difference here. Pessimistic locking already allows phantoms by not forcing a write lock when nodes are added/remove. | By default, this is true, but there is a flag to acquire a write lock for node add/remove. anonymous wrote : | | Yes, that's a good point. Since some people might want phantom prevention, and since optimistic locking has it now, we could make the lazy behavior optional, but default to true since isolation doesn't require it. | | anonymous wrote : | | In the entity caching use case, the map is 100% sure to be read, so a lazy copy doesn't gain anything. | | . | | To clarify, Does it ever call Node.getChildren() or Node.getChildrenNames? What I was meaning was that a direct node lookup (like "/a/b") can use the actual real node's child map, only a direct child map access by the application would require copying. | | -Jason View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4060072#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...