From users-return-8564-apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive=jackrabbit.apache.org@jackrabbit.apache.org Wed Aug 06 07:25:18 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 36330 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2008 07:25:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2008 07:25:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 97157 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2008 07:25:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 97141 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2008 07:25:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 97130 invoked by uid 99); 6 Aug 2008 07:25:15 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:25:15 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of anchela@day.com designates 62.192.10.254 as permitted sender) Received: from [62.192.10.254] (HELO goobak01.day.com) (62.192.10.254) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:24:19 +0000 Received: by goobak01.day.com (Postfix, from userid 1212) id B63C050828; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.185]) by goobak01.day.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F60250825 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d3so1076008nfc.21 for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.115.15 with SMTP id n15mr2140619ebc.81.1218007424701; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.148? ( [62.192.10.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g12sm1781368nfb.28.2008.08.06.00.23.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <489951EE.9000008@day.com> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:25:34 +0200 From: Angela Schreiber User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: what does NodeTypeRegistry.reregisterNodeType() do? References: <01c601c8ed1a$fca0d330$8119fea9@mercury> <90a8d1c00807240221q2034b4eejed963e12c52b4937@mail.gmail.com> <001301c8edb9$c73cea90$8119fea9@mercury> <90a8d1c00807250143w40527ce6w58ee2f47ccf0e813@mail.gmail.com> <005001c8ee91$1230dd40$8119fea9@mercury> <90a8d1c00807280528v3260e508y4e828742f63fc90b@mail.gmail.com> <001301c8f1a6$d9de5170$2801a8c0@mercury> <90a8d1c00807300055w6fcad884k793af2e53b505cfa@mail.gmail.com> <48902FF8.7040208@day.com> <005701c8f278$58d090c0$2801a8c0@mercury> <009101c8f352$37299900$2801a8c0@mercury> <4898107E.6070504@day.com> <01e901c8f735$8ac89e30$2801a8c0@mercury> In-Reply-To: <01e901c8f735$8ac89e30$2801a8c0@mercury> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org hi betty > Hmm, I don't know if I explained my problem well enough. maybe i was just misleaded... i had the impression that the reregistration of the nodetype was successful and there remains a problem in the jcr2spi. > However, if I try to add new properties to existing node types in the > CND file, the reregistration does not seem to do anything > because the new properties never show up when I dump the tree. ok, you are saying that the new *property definitions* are not reflect in the content representation of your nodetype under /jcr:system/jcr:nodeTypes. is that correct? did you refresh the tree? if yes: are you sure, the reregistration on the server was successful? i'm not totally sure, if this is the case. > If I try > to add new content using those new properties, the > program will complain because it does not think those properties exist. yes, that could be caused by various things: - registration was not successful (see above) - nodetype definition on the client does not reflect the most recent one on the server (see reasons explained in the previous mail). so, what i'd like to understand first: was the reregistration of the nodetype definition (with the additional property definition) really successful? did you already send the nt-definition (before and after)? maybe that would be helpful. thanks angela