Right. Is this legal in the first place? Does such a configuration work? Is it sensible?

If it is maybe it would be easiest to simply disallow the use of MacroStores in such scenarios?!

Oliver

Stefan L�tzkendorf schrieb:

Did you mean something like this?

<scope match="/" store="s1">
<scope match="/a/deeper/path" store="s2">

copy /a to /some/collection

both /a and /some/collection are mapped to the same store
s1 but some descendants of the source are from are in store s2.

Thats strange by may happen.

Stefan


Oliver Zeigermann wrote:

Stefan L�tzkendorf schrieb:


Oliver Zeigermann wrote:

Oliver Zeigermann schrieb:

Stefan L�tzkendorf schrieb:

Oliver Zeigermann wrote:

How do I find out which stores are involved? Analysing what has been configured in Domain.xml?






what about that?
Uri source, destination;
if (source.getStore() == destination.getStore()) {
  // source and destination are in the same store
}






Glad I asked someone ;) My solution would have been crazy...





But wait: this will not work when successors of the Uris are in different stores :(



??? can you give me an example?



No, seems this was just nonsense ...

Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to