Hi, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Tobias Bocanegra <[email protected]> wrote: > I partially agree. if oak does not support SNS at all
We actually do need at least limited SNS support, as the spec requires it for node type definitions. What we do there is just store the affected nodes with the SNS suffixes included in the node names. Thus it would be nice if the path mapper didn't eagerly throw exceptions for SNS, and the presense or absense of SNS content would be simply determined by whether matching content exists in the repository. > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another way to look at this is to take it as more evidence that we need > > better path handling aka OAK-1179. > right. so let's keep it that way and fix it together with the new path > handling. Sounds good. BR, Jukka Zitting
