On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 22:04, Jeff Yemin <jeff.ye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thomas Müller-2 wrote: >> You are right. Unfortunately "orderable child nodes" is the default. > > Where in the spec does it say what the default is for orderable child nodes? > The only place I see it is in the CND for nt:unstructured. Or is this a > Jackrabbit implementation default that users now rely on?
I think Thomas refers to the commonly used nt:unstructured that has orderable child nodes. Even if you inherit from it, you can't change that behavior. > Of the use cases I'm aware of for flat > hierarchies, none require an ordering of the children anyway, so this might > be an acceptable limitation in the implementation. Right, there are either a low number of nodes that might be orderable or a large number of nodes, that are unordered. At least these are the cases that jr3 should be optimized for. So for the unordered case, one should use a node type that does not have orderable child nodes. If someone choses to add a lot of nodes to an orderable child nodes list, it is ok to be slow. Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek alexander.klimetsc...@day.com
