On 2013-10-01 16:17, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote:
What are our expections with respect to certain normalizations of node names
a repository *might* do, such as:
From the implementation perspective: I think such concerns should be
taken care of on a level above the repository. At best I'd see the
repository enforcing a particular naming policy by refusing to create
content with un-normalized names.
From the client perspective: I guess a client should be prepared for a
repository that actively does normalize names, as I don't think the
spec rules something like that out and as the spec was written in a
way that would allow it to be implemented on top of existing backends
that already may do such normalization. In practice that would
probably mean that a Node returned from getNode() or addNode() might
not have the exact same name as the one given as the argument.
...
Well, the call could either fail (in which case the client would have a
hard time to figure out how to proceed), or it can pass (and the
returned node would "know" its name).
I think I'd prefer the latter.
Questions:
1) Is this something the spec needs to say?
2) Is this something we want to do in Jackrabbit?
3) Or in Oak?
Best regards, Julian
