Hey Justin, Thanks for the info! I see your point
Greets Roy > On 14 Nov 2016, at 00:09, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Roy, > In general, JCR namespaces are well suited (the same could said for most > other uses of namespaces) for cases where there is a possibility of naming > conflicts. In JCR, this generally happens when you have multiple > "application" (used broadly) owners overlapping on the same node. When you > have relatively common names like "settings" "configRef" (well, maybe that > isn't as common), "dialog", etc. this becomes important and especially so > when adding a new content model which is expected to be applied to an > *existing* content structure as I understand is the case with context aware > config. > > I'm not sure I understand the part of your question about nodetypes. > Namespaces and nodetypes are orthogonal. > > HTH, > Justin > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:16 PM Roy Teeuwen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> Could anyone explain me what the benefit is of using node (or property) >> names that contain a namespace, instead of just using nodetypes to force >> rules on what can be placed on certain nodes? For example for the context >> aware config there has been chosen to call the node sling:settings and the >> property sling:configRef, or in AEM they use cq:dialog, cq:template and >> cq:editConfig Does this give any advantage over just using a normal node >> name with a custom primaryType? I have noticed you can not use arbitrarily >> namespaces if they haven't been registered, for example trying to make a >> node named custom:node will throw a RepositoryException if custom is not >> registered, so they definitely get checked specifically. >> >> Thanks! >> Greetings, >> Roy
