On 7/7/10 8:46 AM, Ian Boston wrote: >>> Without differentiation between "list child nodes" and "read child node" in >>> jcr-170 or jcr-283, I don't think what I need to be done, can be achieved >>> by any access manager/access control provider that conforms to the standard. >>> >>> So I have no option but to put the access control somewhere else. >> >> That doesn't solve the IMHO conceptually wrong content model, ie. if >> the /_user/<userid> node itself is both private and public at the same >> time. >> >>> I will look that the userdir suggestion that Bertrand made, perhaps as a >>> resource resolver as that is probably a better way of doing it in Sling. >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel#Rule_.232:_Drive_the_content_hierarchy.2C_don.27t_let_it_happen. > > > Agreed, > unfortunately the UX team are in charge of the content hierarchy and they > don't agree 100% on that point, the consensus is; millions of child nodes at > one point in the hierarchy is Ok, rather like a filesystem with one massive > folder. I have tried to convince them of otherwise, but failed. > IIUC the number of child nodes isn't relevant. If you broke down the children of /users to /users/a, /users/b, /users/c ... /users/z, you STILL wouldn't want to allow the children of those nodes to be listed.
Justin > Thank you for your help > Ian > >> >> Regards, >> Alex >> >> -- >> Alexander Klimetschek >> [email protected] >
