Hello, Thank you for the quick replies! The /child2 path is exclusively provided by the custom resource provider. Would anyone know a hint why this just happens in case of a .html extension? There must be some other actor influencing this behavior.
Kind regards, Olaf -----Original Message----- From: Felix Meschberger [mailto:fmesc...@adobe.com] Sent: Montag, 13. Januar 2014 23:38 To: users@sling.apache.org Subject: Re: ResourceProvider not invoked when provider root path is called with HTML extension Hi As Alex said, this is not expected, but Do you happen to have a node /content/child1/child2.html in the repository ? If so, this would overwrite the ResourceProvider because it has a full path match as opposed to just /child2. Regards Felix Am 13.01.2014 um 14:09 schrieb Olaf Otto <o...@x100.de>: > Hi all, > > > > I have created a resource provider adding content as children into a > tree of existing JCR content, like this: > > > > /content/child1 ß JCR content > > /content/child1/child2 ß Provided by ResourceProvider > > > > This works as expected: child2 is returned as a child of child1, and > invoking /content/child1/child2 yields the provided resource. However, > when calling /content/child1/child2.html, the resource provider is > never asked for a resource. Instead, the default get servlet returns a > synthetic resource, causing a redirect to > /content/child1/child2.html/, resulting in a 404. Using a different > extension works - when I call /content/child1/child2.json, the > provider is called. Children of the root path however work with a > .html extension: A request to /content/child1/child2/child3.html is mapped to the resource provider. > > > > I have played with the resource provider's properties, trying both > /content/child1/child2 and /content/child1/child2/ as root and setting > owns root to true. This had no effect - the provider is only called if > /content/child1/child2.html is added as a root path. This, however, is > not an acceptable solution as child1 features both child2 and > child2.html as children afterwards. > > > > In summary, this looks like a bug to me - am I right or am I missing a > piece of the puzzle? > > > > Kind regards, > > Olaf >
