[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1232?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13833605#comment-13833605
]
angela edited comment on OAK-1232 at 11/27/13 9:27 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------
+1 for the clean up.
regarding interaction with Tree#exists:
afaik there exists another issue stating that Property#getStatus requires read
access to the parent node:
OAK-212 and OAK-220
IMHO the status of an accessible property should be obtained without taking the
accessibility of the parent node into account. am i missing something that
would prevent us from doing this?
was (Author: anchela):
afaik there exists another issue stating that Property#getStatus requires read
access to the parent node:
OAK-212 and OAK-220
IMHO the status of an accessible property should be obtained without taking the
accessibility of the parent node into account. am i missing something that
would prevent us from doing this?
> Improve implementation of Tree.get(Property)Status
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-1232
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1232
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Michael Dürig
> Priority: Minor
>
> OAK-928 introduced methods for determining the status of a property from a
> {{NodeBuilder}}. The implementations of {{Tree.getPropertyStatus}} should
> change using these new methods instead of duplicating the logic.
> Furthermore the since the {{get(Propert)Status}} methods pre-dates the
> introduction of the {{exists}} method, we should also clarify the effect of
> calling such methods on a non existing tree.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
