[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-205?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13421309#comment-13421309
]
Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-205:
-----------------------------------
bq. i would suggest to redefine Tree#getChild to take a relative path or to
change the method to something like #getTree(String relativePath).
The only problem I see in the issue description is about {{Root.getTree()}}
calling {{Tree.getChild}}, and I don't get how changing the method on {{Tree}}
would solve that. Is there some other reason why we'd need relative paths
instead of just child names on the {{Tree}} method?
> Redefined Tree#getChild(String name) to #getTree(String relativePath)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-205
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-205
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: angela
>
> currently the API defines the following to methods to access a Tree:
> - Root#getTree(String path)
> - Tree#getChild(String name)
> the method on Root is current implemented by traversing the hierarchy (calling
> Tree#getChild for all elements in the given path. that will not work in
> situations where a parent is not accessible. similarly getChild only allows
> to access a direct child.
> i would suggest to redefine Tree#getChild to take a relative path or to
> change the method to something like #getTree(String relativePath).
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
