jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "McComsey, Doug" <Doug.Mccom...@ca.com>
Subject RE: Question on protected property of nt:versionHistory's residual node
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:06:26 GMT

Should my implementation of the canAddChildNode method be requiring
protected=false? If so, how can I pass this TCK test? It would seem to
me that all calls to canAddChildNode on an nt:versionHistory would fail.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Strasser [mailto:tobias.strasser@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:39 AM
To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on protected property of nt:versionHistory's
residual node

the entire jcr:versionStorage is considered as read only and therefor
nt:version, nt:versionHistory etc. are protected.

On 6/2/05, McComsey, Doug <Doug.Mccomsey@ca.com> wrote:
> In section of jsr170-0.16.3-pfd.pdf (nt:versionHistory) on
page 149, there are three child node definitions. The first two are
autocreated, mandatory and protected. The third is a residual definition
that is neither autocreated nor mandatory and therefore I feel it should
NOT be protected. In the spec, however, it is defined as protected.
> Which is correct?
> Note: This came up because I am failing the testResidualAndLegalType
test (due to the protection) in the CanAddChildNodeCallWithNodeTypeTest
class. This test calls canAddChildNode on an nt:versionHistory NodeType.
Why isn't everybody failing this test?
> Regards,
> Doug
> Doug McComsey
> Computer Associates
> doug.mccomsey@ca.com

------------------------------------------< tobias.strasser@day.com >---
Tobias Strasser, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel
T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97 
-----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---

View raw message