Re: Different ways to define initial content :: Content.xml vs Json equivalent

On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 08:32 +0200, Roy Teeuwen wrote: > Hey Andy, > > The license inside might not be good enough ;) > > Greets, > Roy > > On 3 Apr 2017, at 22:50, Andreas Schaefer > > wrote: > > > > Why is that necessary? The one from Adobe isn't good enough? IANAL and speaking only as an Apa

Re: Export content as JSON ready to be imported

Hi Guillaume AFAIK Jackrabbit FileVault uses a similar approach. I'm not super familiar with the code, but you may find interesting details if you look at the classes JackrabbitACLImporter[0] and/or JcrACLManagement[1]. The order of ACEs is significant. IIRC later entries "override" earlier ones

Re: Different ways to define initial content :: Content.xml vs Json equivalent

Yes, I was thinking that might be the issue. Do you guess have already something on Git? Thanks - Andy Schaefer > On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:13 AM, Robert Munteanu wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 08:32 +0200, Roy Teeuwen wrote: >> Hey Andy, >> >> The license inside might not be good enough ;) >>

Re: Different ways to define initial content :: Content.xml vs Json equivalent

Hey Andy, As you can see in the ticket, there is already something that exists: > a good starting point for this may be the wcm.io content package maven plugin: > • > http://wcm.io/tooling/maven/plugins/wcmio-content-package-maven-plugin/ > • > https://github.com/wcm-io/wcm-io-tooli