jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject path parser changes, was: index handling
Date Mon, 21 May 2012 16:10:04 GMT
On 2012-05-16 14:40, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-15 23:26, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
> Summarizing from a chat I just did with Jukka:
> 1) one goal for the path mapping (JCR->OAK) is to have as many cases as
> possible where we don't have to map:
> a) if a path does not contain one of "{}:[]", we don't need to map
> b) if the current session has no active namespace remappings and the
> path does not contain one of "{}[]", we don't need to map. (Note that
> this mean that we can leave /parent/child/jcr:content alone if no
> namespaces have been remapped)
> 2) Have the path mapper (JCR->OAK) deal just with prefix rewriting and
> expanded name resolution, and return either the original String (taking
> the potential shortcuts into account) or the mapped String
> 3) For JCR methods that create new nodes (addNode, destination path in
> copy / move), have a method that splits into parent path and child name.
> The latter can be checked for the presence of [] then (in which case the
> method can throw)
> 4) In general, do not normalize paths, just walk the internal node tree.
> 4a) Note that this assumes that we "walk" the tree (for some value of
> "walk") without being stopped by access control.
> Feedback appreciated, Julian

I just had a look at the current code, and it seems the right way to 
proceed is to remove the following parts from JcrPathParser:

- identifier paths (we already do this elsewhere)
- index handling (maybe except for syntax checks)
- . and .. handling

So this was leave us with:

- syntax checks
- expanded name resolution
- prefix rewriting

I just tried this and it breaks only the NamePathParserImplTests (that 
assume this code is there), and a few TCK cases that make assuptions of 
index handling (which we'll do somewhere else as well).

Feedback appreciated, Julian

View raw message