On 16.12.2022 14:38, Konrad Windszus wrote:
On 16. Dec 2022, at 14:31, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote:
So in the case of SLING-11736 I have proposed adding a [strict] option
to "create path", exemple:
create path [strict] (nt:folder) /one(mixin nt:art)/step(mixin
nt:dance)/two/steps
which activates the improved behavior proposed in that ticket
(adjusting primary + mixin types of existing nodes if needed), without
changing the behavior for existing code.
I think that's inline with the above principles, WDYT?
-Bertrand
I don’t like this for the reasons outlined at
https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-jcr-repoinit/pull/41#issuecomment-1354488929
"From an end user perspective deprecating one statement and introducing a new
one with a more concise name is better than just adding the option strict to
existing statements with fuzzy names like “path”:
Also I consider the statement name “create path” very inconcise as adding
properties in JCR is also creating a “path”.
Since for backwards compatibility reasons users of the existing “create path”
which want to leverage the stricter handling in any way have to update the
statement they should rather replace “create path” by “create node” instead of
adding a new option “strict”. IMHO that makes the statement also easier to
read/understand.
Feedback from an innocent bystander: if the command already has a poorly
chosen name, it really makes sense to add a new command with precisely
defined semantics and a clear failure mode.
(so, no to adding "strict" here)
Best regards, Julian
