Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal NodeType
definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JCR-1360
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360
Project: Jackrabbit
Issue Type: Bug
Components: jackrabbit-core
Reporter: angela
Priority: Trivial
i created a test in order to make sure builtin-nodetypes.xml and
builtin-nodetypes.cnd provide the same definitions (actually i only wanted to
test my own changes).
it reveals that the existing built-in NodeTypeDefinitions are not equal due to
the following reason:
- in the xml-format nt:base is always specified if no other super type extends
from nt:base
- in the cnd notation the nt:base is omitted (see below for quote from appendix
of jsr 283) even if other super type(s) are
defined and none of them extends from nt:base.
this affects the following nodetypes (all extending from mix:referenceable
only):
nt:versionHistory
nt:version
nt:frozenNode
nt:resource
quote from public-review of jsr 283:
"7.2.2.4 Supertypes [...]
After the node type name comes the optional list of supertypes. If this element
is not present and the node type is not a mixin (see 7.2.2.5 Options), then a
supertype of nt:base is assumed."
I'm not totally sure, if according to the quote above the built-in
cnd-definitions are valid at all. since it states, that the nt:base is assumed
if no other super type is defined. In the case of the node types above,
mix:referenceable is defined to be the only super type, which is not totally
true... the non-mixin types are always sub types of nt:base.
In either case: From my understanding the node types resulting from parsing the
xml and the cnd file should be equal.
If the definitions are valid, we may need to adjust the
CompactNodeTypeDefReader.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
