expanded names vs node types

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

Hi,

I just realized that in JCR 2.0, we may have forgotten to specify 
whether node type related methods (addMixin, isNodeType etc) are 
supposed to take expanded names.

I believe they should, but I can't find anything related to it in the 
JavaDocs. Should we raise this as a JSR-333 issue?

Best regards, Julian

Re: expanded names vs node types

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

On 2012-05-27 01:55, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Julian Reschke<ju...@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> I just realized that in JCR 2.0, we may have forgotten to specify whether
>> node type related methods (addMixin, isNodeType etc) are supposed to take
>> expanded names.
>>
>> I believe they should, but I can't find anything related to it in the
>> JavaDocs. Should we raise this as a JSR-333 issue?
>
> JCR 2.0 is already pretty clear on this. Section 3.2.6 [1] says: "When
> a JCR name is passed as an argument to a JCR method it may be in
> either expanded or qualified form."
>
> [1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/3_Repository_Model.html#3.2.6%20Use%20of%20Qualified%20and%20Expanded%20Names

Very good. OAK currently doesn't do this, so it seems we don't have TCK 
coverage for it...

Best regards, Julian

Re: expanded names vs node types

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I just realized that in JCR 2.0, we may have forgotten to specify whether
> node type related methods (addMixin, isNodeType etc) are supposed to take
> expanded names.
>
> I believe they should, but I can't find anything related to it in the
> JavaDocs. Should we raise this as a JSR-333 issue?

JCR 2.0 is already pretty clear on this. Section 3.2.6 [1] says: "When
a JCR name is passed as an argument to a JCR method it may be in
either expanded or qualified form."

[1] http://www.day.com/specs/jcr/2.0/3_Repository_Model.html#3.2.6%20Use%20of%20Qualified%20and%20Expanded%20Names

BR,

Jukka Zitting