jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Nuescheler" <david.nuesche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Modifying checking in properties.
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:20:18 GMT
hi peter,

i think you are right. i will file an issue in jsr-283 to make sure
that we don't
forget to fix this.

i think it would basically boil down to something like:
---
The node N and its connected subtree become read-only, with the exception
of properties and child-nodes that are set to OPV=VERSION or OPV=IGNORE.
---

is that correct?

regards,
david

On 6/2/05, Peter Morton <Peter.Morton@gtnet.com> wrote:
> Not really, i read this section of the spec and it does not really do what I
> would like it to do.
>
> I would like properties that have OnParentVersionAction.IGNORE set on them
> to be read-write within my workspace regardless of the check-in status.
>
> Peter.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:anchela@day.com]
> > Sent: 02 June 2005 13:45
> > To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Modifying checking in properties.
> >
> >
> > hi
> >
> > you cannot set a property of a checked-in node.
> > see jsr170 specification section 8.2.5 Check In:
> >
> > "The node N and its connected non-versionable subtree become read-only.
> > [...]
> > Read-only status means that an item cannot be altered by the client
> > using standard API methods (addNode, setProperty, etc.). The only
> > exceptions to this rule are the restore , Node.merge and Node.update
> > operations; [...]".
> >
> > and section 8.2.6 Check Out:
> >
> > "In order to alter a versionable node (and its non-versionable subtree)
> > the node must be checked-out."
> >
> > is that, what you were looking for?
> > kind regards
> >
> > Peter Morton wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I would like to set the value of a property of a node that is
> > checked-in,
> > > without having to check the node out.  (ie so that it is only
> > exists in the
> > > workspace and not under version control)
> > >
> > > I have set the property OnParentVersionAction.IGNORE for
> > onParentVersion.
> > > but the code fails due to the following check:
> > >
> > >         // verify that parent node is checked-out
> > >         if (!parent.internalIsCheckedOut()) {
> > >             throw new VersionException("cannot set the value of
> > a property
> > > of a checked-in node "
> > >                     + safeGetJCRPath());
> > >         }
> > >
> > > Should I be doing this a different way?
> > >
> > > Peter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> > > This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential,
> > and is intended
> > > solely for the addressee. If you have received this
> > communication in error
> > > please remove it and inform us via telephone or email.
> > >
> > > Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and
> > attachments are free
> > > from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept
> > any responsibility
> > > whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds.
> > >
> > > The views represented within this mail are solely the view of the
> > > author and do not reflect the views of Graham Technology as a whole.
> > >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> > >
> > > Graham Technology plc                               http://www.gtnet.com
> > >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended
> solely for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error
> please remove it and inform us via telephone or email.
>
> Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and attachments are free
> from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept any responsibility
> whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds.
>
> The views represented within this mail are solely the view of the
> author and do not reflect the views of Graham Technology as a whole.
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Graham Technology plc                               http://www.gtnet.com
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>

Mime
View raw message