There is one related problem with mapping: Consider the case you have a resource resolver mapping from "/content/" to "/". In the underlying repository you have a resource in "/content/existingParent".
Now it might happen that a NonExistingResource is resolved for path "/existingParent/nonExistingResource". Since this is pointing towards a non-existing resource the mapping is not active (i.e. the path will not contain "/content"). So you end up with a NonExistingResource with path "/existingParent/nonExistingResource". Now you call getParent() on this resource. You would expect to end up with an existing resource in "/content/existingParent" (because that path does exist in the repository). Unfortunately due to the logic in AbstractResource.getParent() this just calls ResourceResolver.getParent() which will not use ResourceResolver.resolve(...) but rather ResourceResolver.getResource(...) internally. So the mapping is not considered here. Therefore no resource is found at "/existingParent", although it does exist at "/content/existingParent". This is unexpected and wrong in my opinion. So the NonExistingResource should not rely on AbstractResource.getParent() at all, but rather use its own implementation relying on ResourceResolver.resolve(...). WDYT? Thanks, Konrad > On 02 Jun 2016, at 14:48, Konrad Windszus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the input. > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-5757 for tracking that > and I am going to propose a patch in there. > > What about SyntheticResources which are not NonExistingResources? If we would > follow the same approach as for NonExistingResources the question is, with > which resource type the non-existing parent resource should be created? Or > should a SyntheticResource (which is not a NonExistingResource) return a > NonExistingResource for getParent() instead in that case? > > Konrad > > >> On 02 Jun 2016, at 13:47, Daniel Klco <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would imagine that the only thing this would change is to make a small >> number of null checks irrelevant. >> >> +1 for making the behavior more consistent, however, the JavaDocs and >> release notes should be explicit about this change. >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Georg Henzler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Konrad, >>> >>> +1 for making the behaviour of NonExistingResource more consistent - I >>> personally can't think of any places this would break existing code. >>> >>> Regards >>> Georg >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2016-06-01 15:09, Konrad Windszus wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Robert, >>>> thanks for your input. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am not sure whether this would confuse existing clients though... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am also a bit worried about that but the only example I could think >>>> of is a code trying to create the parent nodes or collecting the >>>> non-existing ones by checking getParent() for null. >>>> >>>> This would be pretty bad style IMHO therefore I would deliberately be >>>> willing to break that code. I wonder what do others think about >>>> changing the semantics of getParent() for NonExistingResource and >>>> probably also SyntheticResource. >>>> Konrad >>>> >>> >>> >
