Hi,
If I had to do that I would probably model the ACLs for those state changes on
application level (in your Workflow engine), not in the repository.
But if you really want to do it in the repository I see 2 possible ways:
1. model the states as child nodes of the item in workflow, e.g.
|
-item
Hi,
The recently introduced lucene property index calculates the entry count
accurately based on lucene's API but gets penalized for being accurate by
the nodeType index and does not get selected.
What heuristics should we apply to the cost estimation so that it gets
selected for the appropriate c
Hi,
I opt for 2
Michael
On 16 Oct 2014, at 08:01, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> I need to update documentation for Lucene based property indexes. This
> is currently in trunk and is planned to be part of Oak 1.0.8. So while
> updating the docs should
>
> 1. Update in trunk and then m
Thanks Angela.
You were right. On adding a mixinNode to [nt:file], all the sub-nodes are also
versioned.
Regards,
Aman Arora
-Original Message-
From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:anch...@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:27 PM
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ve
Hi,
I wonder if there is a bug in the StableRevisionComparator. It uses
Revision.compareRevisionTimeThenClusterId, which doesn't take the "branch"
flag into account. I would probably use the following instead:
/**
* Compare all components of two revisions.
*
* @param other the other revision
Hi Team,
I need to update documentation for Lucene based property indexes. This
is currently in trunk and is planned to be part of Oak 1.0.8. So while
updating the docs should
1. Update in trunk and then merge to master but deploy to
website from trunk
2. OR Update in trunk and mention that i
i think it should... if i am not mistaken neither nt:file
nor nt:resource specifies another OPV... but you may want
to check again in order to be sure...
regards
angela
On 15/10/14 15:02, "Aman Arora" wrote:
>Thanks for the response,
>Actually I have a file node. To that file node, I have added
Hi,
should we not check what the spec says about sorting MVPs? (and if allowed:
model the behaviour after JR2?)
Cheers
Michael
On 15 Oct 2014, at 16:20, Amit Jain wrote:
>> What should be the output with
>>
>> /a {v: [1, 10]}
>> /b {v: [2,9]}
>>
>
> Shouldn't it be /a because its encounter
> What should be the output with
>
> /a {v: [1, 10]}
> /b {v: [2,9]}
>
Shouldn't it be /a because its encountered first for both ascending and
descending?
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/699
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source S
Thanks for the response,
Actually I have a file node. To that file node, I have added two mixinNodes,
one is mix:versionable and the other is some custom node type.
Now I want all the properties of nt:file as well as nt:resource to be
versioned, including jcr:data, and the properties from the cus
hi aman
it depends a bit on how you want your version content to look like and what
you want to restore... the file or the content node?
second you have to look at the OnParentVersion flag defined with the
node type definition which - as you can see in JSR 283 - defines what
happens to the child
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/698
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stam
Hi,
I need to version the jcr:data property of nt:resource. For that, Do I need to
add mixinNode (mix:versionable) to [nt:file] or [nt:resource]?
Thanks & Regards,
Aman Arora
> It's unlikely that one would sort with a multi-valued property, but I
guess it's possible. Couldn't you index on all values?
I think Lucene would handle it but was confirming if this is a
practical usecase. Also it pose some issue with approach being taken
in OAK-2196.
What should be the output
Hi,
It's unlikely that one would sort with a multi-valued property, but I
guess it's possible. Couldn't you index on all values?
Some strange behavior could occur. If we have two nodes:
/a {v: [1, 10]}
/b {v: 5}
Then XPath "order by v" would return /a first (because of v=1), and then
/b. And "o
Hi,
Is sorting possible on an array property? For now in Lucene I am
restricting sorting for non array property only so need to check if
that restriction is fine
Chetan Mehrotra
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/696
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source S
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Alex Parvulescu
wrote:
> <[/test/n53, /test/n60, /test/n71,
> /test/n38, /test/n44, /test/n63, /test/n90, /test/n25, /test/n82,
> /test/n69, /test/n0, /test/n84, /test/n91, /test/n39, /test/n70, /test/n86,
> /test/n96, /test/n21, /test/n72, /test/n36, /test/n54, /t
Running
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.LucenePropertyIndexTest
Tests run: 11, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 3.498 sec
<<< FAILURE!
sortQueriesWithDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.LucenePropertyIndexTest)
Time elapsed: 0.347 sec <<< FAILURE!
j
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk-win7/builds/695
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-win7
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stam
Hi,
Guys, thanks for the suggestions!
> May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
I did not want to extend the ignores more than they need to, so I would
leave them as is for now.
> Does the OSGi config allow comments?
Not sure, I haven't seen license headers in config file
Does the OSGi config allow comments? If it does, we could simply add
the license header to those files...
Regards
Marcel
On 15/10/14 10:22, "Chetan Mehrotra" wrote:
>May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
>
>osgi-conf/**/*.*
>Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 a
May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
osgi-conf/**/*.*
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:39 PM, wrote:
> Author: alexparvulescu
> Date: Wed Oct 15 08:09:01 2014
> New Revision: 1631967
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631967
> Log:
> OAK-2189 TarMK cold standb
> we have a pedantic failure. Didn't check what.
should be good now, sorry for the noise.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Davide Giannella
wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> keep checking the build on travis,
>
> since build https://travis-ci.org/apache/jackrabbit-oak/builds/37917407
> we have a pedant
Hello Team,
keep checking the build on travis,
since build https://travis-ci.org/apache/jackrabbit-oak/builds/37917407
we have a pedantic failure. Didn't check what.
The updated list of failing tests and when they occurred is in
https://gist.github.com/davidegiannella/295fdf7760bef2e1d415
Pleas
26 matches
Mail list logo
