jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "angela (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Resolved: (JCR-1360) Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal nt-definitions
Date Tue, 18 May 2010 16:02:44 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

angela resolved JCR-1360.
-------------------------

    Fix Version/s: 2.0.0
       Resolution: Fixed

i think this issue has been fixed in the meantime.
the corresponding jsr 283 issue has been resolved a long time ago and as far as i could see
the limitation in
the xml-nt-parsing for nt:base has been removed (if i'm not mistaken)

> Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal nt-definitions
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-1360
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jackrabbit-core
>            Reporter: angela
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: 1360.patch
>
>
> 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