jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ChadDavis <chadmichaelda...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: same name sibling issuesq
Date Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:29:23 GMT
> Here's my node types:
> // The namespace declaration
> <me = 'http://me.com'>
> //my node types
> [me:document] > nt:hierarchyNode, nt:unstructured, mix:versionable,
> mix:lockable
>   - me:docType (STRING)
> [me:folder] > nt:folder, nt:unstructured, mix:referenceable, mix:lockable
> Oddly enough, when I try to move a node ( me:folder ) to a location that
> would cause a same name sibling conflict, it almost always rejects me with
> an ItemExistsException.  However, a couple of times we've been able to
> witness behavour where the session.move allows the same name sibling to be
> created.  Interestingly, we do a parallel move on a second workspace
> directly after this and that second workspace move tossed the
> ItemExistsException even when the first one didn't.  Note, all of the
> "parent" nodes in these moves are me:folder types.
> When I started to review this issue, I noticed that nt:unstructured allows
> SNS, and my node types all extend nt:unstructured.  To me not yet fully
> matured understanding of defining node types, this leads me to believe that
> my node types SHOULD allow SNS.
> So, two questions persist:
> 1) Do these node type definitions allow for SNS?  ( SNS of type me:document
> or me:folder, and all under a parent of me:folder )

> 2) Does my me:folder definition allow for SNS of me:document and me:folder?
According to my reading of the specification, with regards to node type
inheritance, I come up with the following effective node type definition for
me:folder  (note: I'm omitting mixin related properties and properties in
general as I'm only concerned with child node aspects here )

[me:folder] > nt:folder, nt:unstructured, mix:referenceable, mix:lockable

 + * (nt:hierarchyNode) VERSION                                   //from
 + * (nt:base) = nt:unstructured sns VERSION               // from

So, if I'm creating a me:folder under an me:folder, which child node rule
applies.  The spec simply says that they are both "additive", because of
being "residual".  My guess would be that the first rule applies, since my
me:folder type is, from a type perspective, more specifically an instance of
nt:hierarchyNode than an instance of nt:base.  But I am, admittedly, a bit
lost here.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message