thanks felix, i think we go the same way here - maybe it was not so clear from my wording :-) all i'm saying is: sling uses a JSON like format to present a resource tree which can cause problems for JSON/ECMA compliant clients that don't implement stable child object ordering. as mentioned by [3] this is very unfortunate that ECMA script engines don't do that. such clients currently can't re-use the existing JSON->Object decoder and need to implement it themselves.
> Maybe we could just use a regular "illegal" property name like > ":child-node-order" or ":sling:child-node-order" instead of a single character sling is all about resources - not nodes, right :-) so i'd rather go for: ":child-resource-names" or a shorter ":child-names" regards, toby [3] http://old.nabble.com/iteration-order-for-Object-td31120998.html On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, den 07.04.2011, 12:22 +0100 schrieb Alexander > Klimetschek: >> On 07.04.11 09:17, "Felix Meschberger" <fmesc...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>the special array "*" would contain the names of the child resources >> >> in the order provided by the resource resolver. >> > Maybe we could just use a regular "illegal" property name like >> >":child-node-order" or ":sling:child-node-order" instead of a single >> >character. >> >> What about using ":order"? > > The problem is that ":order" already is used by the Sling POST Servlet > to define the order of newly inserted nodes... > > While I don't think we are walking into a collision here in the near > future, I would like to either not use that name or correlate an > potential update of Sling POST Servlet's use of the parameter, e.g. to > define/update the order of nodes .... > >> >> And the selector would be "order" as well (e.g. "foo.order.infinity.json"). > > sounds reasonable to me. > > Regards > Felix > > >
