Should my implementation of the canAddChildNode method be requiring protected=false? If so, how can I pass this TCK test? It would seem to me that all calls to canAddChildNode on an nt:versionHistory would fail.
Doug -----Original Message----- From: Tobias Strasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Question on protected property of nt:versionHistory's residual node hi, the entire jcr:versionStorage is considered as read only and therefor nt:version, nt:versionHistory etc. are protected. On 6/2/05, McComsey, Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In section 6.7.22.13 of jsr170-0.16.3-pfd.pdf (nt:versionHistory) on page 149, there are three child node definitions. The first two are autocreated, mandatory and protected. The third is a residual definition that is neither autocreated nor mandatory and therefore I feel it should NOT be protected. In the spec, however, it is defined as protected. > > Which is correct? > > Note: This came up because I am failing the testResidualAndLegalType test (due to the protection) in the CanAddChildNodeCallWithNodeTypeTest class. This test calls canAddChildNode on an nt:versionHistory NodeType. Why isn't everybody failing this test? > > Regards, > Doug > > Doug McComsey > Computer Associates > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- ------------------------------------------< [EMAIL PROTECTED] >--- Tobias Strasser, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97 -----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
