jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "angela (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Created: (JCR-1360) Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal NodeType definitions
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:24:10 GMT
Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal NodeType definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: JCR-1360
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360
             Project: Jackrabbit
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: jackrabbit-core
            Reporter: angela
            Priority: Trivial


i created a test in order to make sure builtin-nodetypes.xml and builtin-nodetypes.cnd provide
the same definitions (actually i only wanted to test my own changes).

it reveals that the existing built-in NodeTypeDefinitions are not equal due to the following
reason:

- in the xml-format nt:base is always specified if no other super type extends from nt:base
- in the cnd notation the nt:base is omitted (see below for quote from appendix of jsr 283)
even if other super type(s) are
  defined and none of them extends from nt:base.

this affects the following nodetypes (all extending from mix:referenceable only):

nt:versionHistory
nt:version
nt:frozenNode
nt:resource


quote from public-review of jsr 283:

"7.2.2.4 Supertypes [...]
After the node type name comes the optional list of supertypes. If this element is not present
and the node type is not a mixin (see 7.2.2.5 Options), then a supertype of nt:base is assumed."


I'm not totally sure, if according to the quote above the built-in cnd-definitions are valid
at all. since it states, that the nt:base is assumed if no other super type is defined. In
the case of the node types above, mix:referenceable is defined to be the only super type,
which is not totally true... the non-mixin types are always sub types of nt:base.

In either case: From my understanding the node types resulting from parsing the xml and the
cnd file should be equal.
If the definitions are valid, we may need to adjust the CompactNodeTypeDefReader.






-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message