Hi, On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Tobias Bocanegra <[email protected]> wrote: > I would rather keep the support for same name properties and nodes in > order to ensure backward compatibility for existing repositories.
I tend to agree. There don't seem to be too many benefits to keeping the current design, and the backwards compatibility aspect might well be a real problem for existing deployments. > Are there any other areas where the item name ambiguity is not > properly handled, because we assume no same name property and node > names? e.g. in permission evaluation, search, etc? I think the most prominent case is the MicroKernel JSON model. But it should be quite straightforward to adjust the JSON format, for example by putting all child nodes within an extra ":children" object. There are some other cases, like the simple URL and JSON mappings in the oak-http draft, that would need to be adjusted, but I don't think any of these would require too much effort. AFAICT the core functionality in oak-core and oak-jcr is mostly unaffected by this, given the structure of the Tree and NodeState APIs that (reflecting the JCR API) make a clear distinction between properties and child nodes. BR, Jukka Zitting
