jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ChadDavis <chadmichaelda...@gmail.com>
Subject same name sibling issuesq
Date Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:46:47 GMT
I've been under the impression that my nodetypes don't allow for SNS.  And,
in deed, my application behaves like that about 99% of the time.

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?

Thanks so much,
Chad

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