I am in favour of keeping both jcr:content and sling:members, it might look
additional today. But this will ensure that we have enough flexibility to
evolve in future.
If this looks fine to everyone, I can work on a patch..
Thanks,
-Amit
-Original Message-
From: Felix Meschberger
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Amit.. Gupta. amitg...@adobe.com wrote:
I am in favour of keeping both jcr:content and sling:members...
If this looks fine to everyone, I can work on a patch..
Works for me as long as it's covered by tests...otherwise the risk of
changing behavior without
Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
Regards
Carsten
2013/5/6 Amit.. Gupta. amitg...@adobe.com
I am in favour of keeping both jcr:content and sling:members, it might
look additional today. But this will ensure that we have enough flexibility
to evolve in future.
If this looks fine
On 06.05.2013, at 14:45, Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org wrote:
Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
Same here - sling:members as intermediary node solves the issue of reducing
conflicts already. Introducing yet another intermediary doesn't bring anything
new to the table. Any
Hi
Am 06.05.2013 um 15:37 schrieb Alexander Klimetschek:
On 06.05.2013, at 14:45, Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org wrote:
Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
Same here - sling:members as intermediary node solves the issue of reducing
conflicts already. Introducing yet
Ok, found it in the bug; I think sling:members is fine and I don't see
any need for jcr:content. It doesn't provide any additional value, so let's
just go with sling:members
Carsten
2013/5/6 Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
Regards
Carsten
The only potential reason I see for jcr:content is if we allow a hierarchy
of collections, so /a/b points to collection B and /a/b/c points to
collection C.
Carsten
2013/5/6 Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
Ok, found it in the bug; I think sling:members is fine and I don't see
any need
That does not seem to be a use case so far for collections..
-Amit
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziege...@apache.org]
Sent: 06 May 2013 23:49
To: dev@sling.apache.org
Subject: Re: Please vote for SLING-2853 (content Structure)
The only potential reason I see
-
From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziege...@apache.org]
Sent: 06 May 2013 23:49
To: dev@sling.apache.org
Subject: Re: Please vote for SLING-2853 (content Structure)
The only potential reason I see for jcr:content is if we allow a hierarchy of
collections, so /a/b points to collection B
