Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of peeter.piegaze@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=hxtwCReuD6mnY+Aafd+nPM9jPuQP087NbrbANlMqs8Jzx+wufNRY+pGuFSSMN1I/fboL3jdzRcfm+XavuUMR0Y5KG1zH+j5xyjVc08vBBWLJQwQphXrEDMuDWnmzIZ76/kWSaDrqDHaPxh22bcDHz4m8WI04iWfDmtj/SPFDV64=
Message-ID: <3df33a250609041636i4481ca6ahf5b151f063f2fcc5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:36:48 -0400
From: "Peeter Piegaze" <peeter.piegaze@day.com>
Sender: peeter.piegaze@gmail.com
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: SORRY Re: JSR 283: hard links are NOT back
In-Reply-To: <44FCAF69.10406@adelphia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44FCAB8F.4080302@adelphia.net> <44FCAF69.10406@adelphia.net>

Hi Dan,

In JSR 283 we plan to support a feature very similar to hard links.
The Early Draft of 283 has been submited to the JCP and should be
publically available very soon, so you will be able to see for
yourself.

Cheers,
Peeter

On 9/4/06, Dan Connelly <dsconnelly@adelphia.net> wrote:
> My mistake.   I was looking at an old JSR 170 spec.    But my question
> remain the same.    Hard links would be really nice to have.   Either
> that or very strong soft link support.
>
>
>
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> > I see from the archives that hard links were removed from Jackrabbit
> > when they got removed from the JSR 170 spec.
> >
> > The "Multiple Parent" requirement (Section 6.11), a/k/a hard links, is
> > back in the early draft of JSR 283.    Did hard links ever work in
> > Jackrabbit?   Could JR turn on its support for hard links in some
> > future release, or is this feature just a spec writer's pipe dream?
> >
> > Am I right in assuming that this feature was considered too *nix-ish
> > for an MS-ish world?
> >
> > Is the real world satisfied having only REFERENCE-based soft links to
> > mix:referenceables?
> >
> >       -- Dan
> >
>
>