[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1126?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13813810#comment-13813810
]
angela commented on OAK-1126:
-----------------------------
{quote}
This was never a use case. From the beginning on oak-core was deemed to be the
only client to the MicroKernel ever.
{quote}
i can confirm this; it was one of the fundamental design decisions and i was
always and officially promised that oak-core was the only way to access the
microkernel when i expressed concerns wrt security of the MK. if this has
changed in the mean time we should also reconsider on how to secure the MK.
> Same node and property name support
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-1126
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1126
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: core, doc, jcr
> Reporter: Tobias Bocanegra
> Attachments: 0001-OAK-1126-Same-node-and-property-name-support.patch,
> 0002-OAK-1126-Same-node-and-property-name-support.patch, OAK-1126.patch
>
>
> The initial MK abstraction mandated that the nodes and properties share the
> same namespace
> (http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/RepositoryMicroKernel#Data%20Model). This
> is a regression from Jackrabbit 2.x, which supports same name nodes and
> properties (SNNP).
> OTOH, the NodeStores can easily support SNNP and with proper escaping, the
> MKs can also support it.
> We should try to keep the support for SNNP in order to keep backward
> compatibility for existing content, and also keep the support for importing
> XML documents with same attribute and element names.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
