> > ok. only talking POC... > i depends on your needs. what is the nature of the > expected child-nodes (i.e. your dav-resources). > > instead of making the collection nt:unstructured (you > loose the forced nodetype of the children) you may > simply create a nodetype that defines an extra > propertydefinition saying: > * (residual, any name allowed) UNDEFINED (any type allowed) default > type is String (most reasonable) > multivalue,mandatory,protected,autocreated all false.
Thanks. Tried that, works nicely. I'll probably put it on the nt:folder anyway as a cleaner solution > > > I believe this hack should allow me to put properties on a folder but no > > luck so far. > > see above (in case you really have the nt:unstructured commented). > the nt:base is just a 'marker nodetype'. it doesn't define > any child item definitions. > > > I've made a couple of other changes in the xml (versioning related) and > that > > worked just nicely > > why? I had to add mix:versionable to nt:file to get the rfc 32553 (versioning extensions) to work. Is there a better way of doing that? > > don't blame the cockroaches ;) Nah, would never do that. Got an agreement with those guys: they stay out of my bedroom and in turn I don't crawl around on the ceiling and don't keep my kitchen too clean. Works out alright mostly. > angela > > !DSPAM:47a96cba34445260625131!
