Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11F1D102E3 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:21:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4033 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2014 19:21:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 3997 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2014 19:21:27 -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 3989 invoked by uid 99); 27 Feb 2014 19:21:27 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:21:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [216.139.250.139] (HELO joe.nabble.com) (216.139.250.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:21:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.139] (helo=joe.nabble.com) by joe.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WJ6VV-0002bC-NZ for users@jackrabbit.apache.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:20:35 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:20:18 -0800 (PST) From: hsp To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Message-ID: <1393528818689-4660384.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1393524503729-4660381.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Exception in adding mixin with same name property MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I defined node types always with xml, basically can resume as: The name "prop:theme" is ambigous, but the values would be different. Let's say that this was a "mistake" when defined the mixin types... Initially the nodes (typePrimary) would only get one of those mixin, but now the rule has changed and the node can get both mixin, but because the constraint the use case is broken... I Appreciate some ideas, Best Regards! -- View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Exception-in-adding-mixin-with-same-name-property-tp4660381p4660384.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.