hi,
On Apr 15, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On 4/15/06, Greg Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, i'm glad that jackrabbit behaves correctly internally. the
reason i brought this up originally was because NodeTypeWriter
creates documents with the *. i had wanted to create an
Hi,
On 4/15/06, Greg Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, i'm glad that jackrabbit behaves correctly internally. the
> reason i brought this up originally was because NodeTypeWriter
> creates documents with the *. i had wanted to create an xml schema
> to check that a node definition was vali
well, i'm glad that jackrabbit behaves correctly internally. the
reason i brought this up originally was because NodeTypeWriter
creates documents with the *. i had wanted to create an xml schema
to check that a node definition was valid (i needed xml, not cnd).
so, i figured that i would
Hi,
On 4/15/06, Greg Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> your response actually outlines the reason i brought it up. although
> the spec uses the * notation in its definitions, it pretty clearly
> states:
You are right. However, the "*" in the item definitions is rather
treated as a special marker
your response actually outlines the reason i brought it up. although
the spec uses the * notation in its definitions, it pretty clearly
states:
"...to indicate that a property or child node definition is residual,
the value returned by ItemDefinition.getName() is “*”. However, “*”
is not
Hi,
On 4/15/06, Greg Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have a quick question about node type definitions. jackrabbit
> consistently (NodeTypeWriter, custom_nodetypes.xml, etc.) uses
> name="*" for residual definitions in the xml format. however, p. 144
> of the jsr170 spec says that * is not a
hello,
i have a quick question about node type definitions. jackrabbit
consistently (NodeTypeWriter, custom_nodetypes.xml, etc.) uses
name="*" for residual definitions in the xml format. however, p. 144
of the jsr170 spec says that * is not a valid name and the attribute
should be dropp
