You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to oak-issues@jackrabbit.apache.org by "Michael Dürig (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/09/12 13:27:55 UTC

[jira] [Commented] (OAK-1013) Node.addNode(name) different behavior from JR if NodeType resolves to an abstract

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1013?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13765348#comment-13765348 ] 

Michael Dürig commented on OAK-1013:
------------------------------------

Thanks for the test case. I committed a slightly edited version at r1522532
                
> Node.addNode(name) different behavior from JR if NodeType resolves to an abstract
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-1013
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1013
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jcr
>    Affects Versions: 0.8
>            Reporter: Christan Keller
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: Issue.java
>
>
> In Jackrabbit, if you used node.addNode(name) and the NodeType resolved to an abstract like nt:base Jackrabbit still persisted the new Node.
> In Oak a ConstraintViolationException is thrown.
> While the Oak behavior is fully Spec complient, it still may be a migration issue for JR users.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira