[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12566574#action_12566574
]
angela commented on JCR-1360:
-----------------------------
> fine. i will open an jsr 283 issue for that.
Done... #421
> ... what makes me feel uneasy ...
Ok. I tried some more things...
>From what i've seen and if i'm not totally mistaken:
Registering a nodetype definition similar to those that were unequal in my
original test (i.e. those not specifying nt:base as supertype but defining some
other (mixin) supertype) would fail with the following exception:
org.apache.jackrabbit.core.nodetype.InvalidNodeTypeDefException:
all primary node types except nt:base itself must be (directly or indirectly)
derived from nt:base.
So, it seems to me, that we have an issue here... or at least contradictions.
Am I missing something?
angela
> Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal nt-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
> Attachments: 1360.patch
>
>
> 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.
