jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Buchmann <david.buchm...@liip.ch>
Subject Re: jsop and property / node with same name
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:52:13 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi,

> as far as jsop is concerned i don't remember that we ever
> talked about this problematic. but you may come up with a
> suggestion on how to address this.

we could type the properties somehow. it felt weird when implementing
that the thing to identify if something is a node or a property is by
looking at if it has children.

we could have all nodes prepended a character that is not allowed at the
start of a jcr name, like we do for the property type meta information.
the smallest difference would be to have all child nodes start with : as
they afaik never have a type meta data.

> without a having a closer look i can think of
> a - no supported at all (there is an repository descriptor for
>     this called: OPTION_NODE_AND_PROPERTY_WITH_SAME_NAME_SUPPORTED)
>     -> fix jcr-server not to return this descriptor and not
>        to allow for same-named node/property siblings
> b - supported by ignore the fact that it isn't valid json
> c - invent some extra marker for properties that have the same
>     name as a sibling node.
> and there are for sure many other options if this really turns out
> to be a problem.

i think a) making it optional is not very nice. b) is a problem for the
php implementation as we would need to implement our own json parser to
be able to parse broken json, which feels stupid.
if we would do c) as proposed above, would this have a chance of getting
accepted into jackrabbit 2.4 or 2.5? it would create an incompatibility
between the old and the new version if the client is older than the
server. (a new client could still accept the old format of child nodes
as well, but the old client would not expect the nodes to have a : in
front of them)

> but it's definitely worth to keep this in mind for later
> JSOP discussions in order not to forget to address this once
> we have a more formal and finalized protocol.

would be good yes.

cheers,
david

ps:

> imo the same-name-property-node feature was a bad move in jsr 283
> and i don't see a particular value in having this feature.

well, it is possible in xml and we have this import of xml documents...

but i guess we now have it so we do not need to argue if its good or bad :-/
- -- 
Liip AG // Agile Web Development // T +41 26 422 25 11
CH-1700 Fribourg // PGP 0xA581808B // www.liip.ch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk9Z/P0ACgkQqBnXnqWBgIuL3ACcC/BL8Nt9KKDdxHtnZkhHl0yG
iwEAoKZ31WzYlgTn+iKTT1wkUKjGYuaR
=7lWk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message