On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM, GOODWIN, MATTHEW (ATTCORP) <[email protected]> wrote: > It actually may not at all but I couldn't tell for sure because there was no > stack trace of the ItemExistsException. We ran into the situation (as > outlined in the JIRA I referenced) where we would get that exception for SNS > but in our case we were getting the exception when we felt we shouldn't have > and for us it happened correctly somewhat sporadically (the original email > indicated this as well). In our case this was because when things would fail > it would be because sometimes the object (not totally sure how objects were > instantiated) would have the same object id's and our node was specified as > not allowing SNS and would fail. Might not be the same situation but I > thought since the ticket had a patch on it it might be a quick try to see if > it solved their problems.
thanks for the background information! > > Matt > p.s. I can definitely see how someone wouldn't see connection - as there > might not be one :) OTOH i can't definitely rule out the possibility that there is a connection ... ;) cheers stefan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Guggisberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: same name sibling issuesq > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:32 PM, GOODWIN, MATTHEW (ATTCORP) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe we experienced the same issue (in the moveFrom for a node) and >> filed a bug. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2891 > > sorry, but i fail to see how JCR-2891 relates to the issue hand... > > cheers > stefan > >> >> This bug has been scheduled for 2.2.5 but I haven't heard when 2.2.5 is >> going to be released. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ChadDavis [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 1:02 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: same name sibling issuesq >> >>> the following logic applies: >>> >>> - find a matching 'named' child node definition (both name and >> required >>> type >>> constraints must be satisfied) >>> - if none exists, the first residual child node definition that >> satisfies >>> the required type constraint is chosen. the order of evaluation is >>> undefined. >>> >> >> Just to clarify. Are you saying that if two residual child node >> definitions >> are inherited from supertypes, then it's undefined which one get's >> applied? >> Undefined in the specification, correct? >> >> >>> >>> see o.a.j.core.nodetype.EffectiveNodeType#getApplicableChildNodeDef >>> for the implementation. >>> >> >> And, here, you are referring me to see the actual jackrabbit >> implementation >> so I can peruse the logic myself, correct? Thanks. This is precisely >> what >> I need. >> >> At this point, I'm fairly certain that I witnessed erratic behavior in >> Jackrabbit's evaluation of which rule to apply . . . I don't want to >> file a >> super vague ticket for this, as I know that vague tickets are annoying >> -- I >> see plenty of them myself, but I may not get time to investigate further >> . . >> . what do you recommend, should I file a ticket just so it's on record, >> or >> no? >> >> >> >>> WRT your use case i'd suggest to add residual property and child node >>> definitions to me:folder and remove the nt:unstructured supertype. >>> >>> >> Yes, I did something like this already. I defined my own "unstructured" >> type and let my types inherit from that, thus taking all SNS out of the >> inheritance hierarchy. >> >> >>> >>> >> >
