jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: node naming
Date Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:13:40 GMT
On 2013-10-02 16:29, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Well, the call could either fail (in which case the client would have a hard
>> time to figure out how to proceed),  or it can pass (and the returned node
>> would "know" its name).
>> I think I'd prefer the latter.
> Only if you're already prepared to deal with such changes. If you're
> not, I think it'll be clearer to fail fast (with a good enough
> explanation in the exception message) than to silently normalize
> content and possibly cause subtle issues down the line when the
> content doesn't match exactly what the client originally created.

That's why it's bad that the spec is silent on it.

>> 1) Is this something the spec needs to say?
> I'd rather leave it up to the implementations. I think the spec is
> already vague enough to allow different interpretations.
>> 2) Is this something we want to do in Jackrabbit?
> I wouldn't mind adding a validator that refuses to accept
> non-normalized names, though something like that would need be
> configurable to prevent backwards compatibility issues.

I just tested OSX WebDAV access to Jackrabbit, and it uses NFD. So if we 
turn a check on, we'll also have to figure out how and where to map.

>> 3) Or in Oak?
> Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, Oak and Jackrabbit
> should behave the same way by default. So if we add this in
> Jackrabbit, we should do so too in Oak.
> Note that adding such a normalization validator is quite easy in Oak;
> just insert a new Validator instance that checks all names for
> normalization.

Best regards, Julian

View raw message