On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14.12.11 14:18, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> The use case is that the client should have a way to detect the JCR data >>> type for unstructured data (JSON doesn't have a 'date' data type). For >>> the >>> MicroKernel, we currently use a different convention: we encode the data >>> type in the value. >> >> >> <insert-anti-JSON-pro-XML-rant-here/> >> >> Maybe sometimes simple is too simple :-) >> > > When we started using 'JSOP' and JSON for the jr3 Microkernel based > implementation, we didn't have a clear picture on how to map things to JCR. > The conception then was 'decorate it on top somehow'. As it is apparent from > this discussion, this isn't as easy as it seems without resorting to ad-hoc > extensions.
WRT 'copy': not simple? ad-hoc extension? to what? a non-existing specification? cheers stefan > > This discussion just touched two of the paint points: copy and data types. > Others are: observation, locking, name spaces and remapping, access control, > ordering, properties and nodes with the same name, same name siblings... > > Michael > >
