[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11018?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17873462#comment-17873462
]
Stefan Egli commented on OAK-11018:
-----------------------------------
IIUC then [this
comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2164?focusedCommentId=14160320&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14160320]
emphasizes that setting "jcr:uuid" is evil. Yet it was decided back then that
the uniqueness constraint can (and is) still be maintained.
I think the comment about
{quote}Manually adding a property with the name jcr:uuid to a non referenceable
node might have unexpected effects{quote}
is more of a warning that this is an evil thing to do - hence the phrase "might
have unexpected effects". If that would be removed, we'd basically make it non
evil?
> doc: clarify warning about setting jcr:uuid on non-referenceable nodes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-11018
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11018
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Documentation
> Components: doc
> Reporter: Julian Reschke
> Assignee: Julian Reschke
> Priority: Minor
>
> [https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/differences.html#Identifiers] says
> (as per change in OAK-2164):
> {quote}Manually adding a property with the name jcr:uuid to a non
> referenceable node might have unexpected effects as Oak maintains an unique
> index on jcr:uuid properties. As the namespace jcr is reserved, doing so is
> strongly discouraged.
> {quote}
> But the tests for OAK-11000 show that this just works as "expected in Oak"
> (throwing an exception even though no mix:referenceable is present) - as the
> UUID index is maintained even for nodes that do not have mix:referenceable.
> Should we remove or rephrase that warning?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
