anonymous wrote : | | Actually, it's pretty close to what I'd like to see. "UnversionedNode" seems a little long for a name. And usually, you use naming to describe what something is, not what it isn't. | | Since access to nodes should take place using the interfaces (Node or NodeSPI), versioning and locking would exist in NodeSPI. As such, an implementation used for Pessimistic Locking, that does not implement versioning would have to throw UnsupportedOperationExceptions for get/setDataVersion() defined in NodeSPI. And hence the descriptive implementation name: UnversionedNode - "a Node implementation that does not implement versioning as defined by the NodeSPI contract". I agree that this negative implementation is a bit awkward, but unless we have a sub-interface to NodeSPI that defines versioning (and is even more awkward IMO) this is the cleaner of the two. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3994625#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...