I've been under the impression that my nodetypes don't allow for SNS. And, in deed, my application behaves like that about 99% of the time.
Here's my node types: // The namespace declaration <me = 'http://me.com'> //my node types [me:document] > nt:hierarchyNode, nt:unstructured, mix:versionable, mix:lockable - me:docType (STRING) [me:folder] > nt:folder, nt:unstructured, mix:referenceable, mix:lockable Oddly enough, when I try to move a node ( me:folder ) to a location that would cause a same name sibling conflict, it almost always rejects me with an ItemExistsException. However, a couple of times we've been able to witness behavour where the session.move allows the same name sibling to be created. Interestingly, we do a parallel move on a second workspace directly after this and that second workspace move tossed the ItemExistsException even when the first one didn't. Note, all of the "parent" nodes in these moves are me:folder types. When I started to review this issue, I noticed that nt:unstructured allows SNS, and my node types all extend nt:unstructured. To me not yet fully matured understanding of defining node types, this leads me to believe that my node types SHOULD allow SNS. So, two questions persist: 1) Do these node type definitions allow for SNS? ( SNS of type me:document or me:folder, and all under a parent of me:folder ) 2) Does my me:folder definition allow for SNS of me:document and me:folder? Thanks so much, Chad
