Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB4ELO4=3r2-ZYpxbWKn6_ZNkh3qfRKByHJGpB7K3Eg7C8gLfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNbD3nTV-o9gY4Hi+Gn_iqOx+er_RaqYhqoWca4ogQorsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB4ELO4=3r2-ZYpxbWKn6_ZNkh3qfRKByHJGpB7K3Eg7C8gLfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:08:51 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAOFYJNYoFpgP-uHQUn3iebm-rm-mndjEp1ov0KOmpw0D_2JY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Can the children of a non-visible node be listed?
To: Oak devs <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Lukas Eder <lukas.eder@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had recently thought about something similar, in another context.
> Specifically, should the following queries return "bar" or not?
>
>     SELECT * FROM [nt:base] AS n
>     WHERE ISDESCENDANTNODE(n, '/foo')
>
> Or
>
>     SELECT * FROM [nt:base] AS n
>     WHERE ISCHILDNODE(n, '/foo')

I would have them return the "bar" node, based on the fact that both
the ISDESCENDANTNODE and ISCHILDNODE constraints can be evaluated
syntactically by looking only at the path "/foo/bar" without reading
anything from the "foo" node.

BR,

Jukka Zitting