Hello,
currently I can assign a store to a scope in the following way:
store A for scope /
store B for scope /foo
As I've seen in the code at Uri.parseUri(), nodes in scope /foo are not
using store B, but store A! I think it would be better that the scope
definition for store B overwrites the definition of store A. Below you will
find my thought as a code snipped from Uri.parseUri():
while (scopes.hasMoreElements()) {
Scope courScope = scopes.nextScope();
try {
Store newStore = namespace.retrieveStore(courScope);
if (newStore != null) {
store = newStore;
scope = courScope;
// The PK in the current descriptorsStore is the
// portion of the URI relative
// to the Data Source.
this.pk = uri.substring(scope.toString().length())
.hashCode();
}
} catch (ServiceConnectionFailedException e) {
:
:
}
}
:
:
What's your opinion?
Danny =:-)
