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 [mail
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Amit.. Gupta. 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 noticing is real.
-Bert
Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
Regards
Carsten
2013/5/6 Amit.. Gupta.
> 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
On 06.05.2013, at 14:45, Carsten Ziegeler 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 extension (e.g. a "thum
Hi
Am 06.05.2013 um 15:37 schrieb Alexander Klimetschek:
> On 06.05.2013, at 14:45, Carsten Ziegeler 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
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
> Sorry to ask, but what is jcr:content for?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
>
> 2013/5/6 Am
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
> Ok, found it in the bug; I think "sling:members" is fine and I don't see
> any need for jcr:content.
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 for
-
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 and /a
