jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Jackrabbit Wiki] Update of "Jsop" by ThomasMueller
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:29:26 GMT


On 9.12.11 11:23, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> if this is supposed to be a generic format for use outside
>> Jackrabbit. But I'm starting to believe it's not.
>
>> *If* we want to support ordered collections, than the JSON mapping
>> should contain additional information on the sort order of the members.
>> Like this:
>>
>> {"a": {}, "b": {}, "c": {}, "{somejcrrelateduri}sortorder": [ "a", "b",
>> "c" ] }
>
> -1 that's too weird for me. Also, duplicating data is always problematic.
>
> I would rather say ordering is optional, and within Jackrabbit 3 we just
> happen to support it. At least as long as orderable child nodes need to be
> supported. Which, in my view, doesn't need to be the case. I would just
> define that the order is undefined. File systems don't define an order
> either either, and people don't seem to have a problem with that. If the
> shell or a GUI tool orders them by name, and if they are ordered by name
> on the server because the server uses a b-tree, then that's fine. But I
> think it should not be required standard behavior.
>
> I guess I should create an issue request in JSR-333.

I don't think this is necessary since orderable child nodes are optional 
[1].

Michael

[1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/23_Orderable_Child_Nodes.html



Mime
View raw message