Hi bertrand On 7/5/05, Bertrand LEGA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't like the copy approach either. I found the same limitation and > > proposed to make the constructor public but there was no interest at > > that moment. Feel free to post a jira issue. > > Ok. I'll do that.
thanks, and please attach a patch. > > > I'd like to add checks for node type constraints before committing the > > contribution. I don't like the idea of committing a repair tool that > > will surely break the repo in known circumstances. Thanks for > > volunteering :). > > Could you be more specific how the tool may introduce new > inconsistencies ? Removing a mandatory name/property for example ? yes, that's why I want to add checks for node type constraints. > In this case, we need to check the mandatory state of the Item we want > to remove and remove the parent too (and the parent of the parent and so > on). But as you pointd out, you need a NodeTypeRegistry to do that. > > What can be done for the property, instead of removing it is to set to a > default value. Which can be done with a NodeTypeRegistry. I think both strategies might be useful. I'd like a config that tries to remove the reference to the corrupted property and then tries to add a new one if needed. > Tell me if I'm doing something you've already done. No, I've added a few test cases. > > I'm interested to have your feedback on these points. I like your ideas and I look forward to add them. thanks, edgar > Cheers, > Bertrand. > >
