On 2/18/10 4:27 PM, Alexander Klimetschek wrote: > 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.
Perhaps JR3 should define a node type called unstructured-unordered :) Would be non-standard, of course. Justin > > >> 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 >
