On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Markus Joschko > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I want to move a node to a new destination where I can have same-name >> siblings. >> I can't use the current MoveOperation as it always deletes the destination >> node. >> >> if (session.itemExists(destPath)) { >> session.getItem(destPath).remove(); >> } >> >> Is it worthwile to create a patch which checks whether same name >> siblings are allowed >> and in that case not delete the destination node or should I rather >> create my own move operation?... > > Same-name siblings are a bad idea in general [1], mostly because their > paths are unstable. > > So IMHO we should leave it as is in Sling and have people create their > own move operations if they really want to use same-name siblings.
As I commented on SLING-2078, regardless of goodness or badness of the idea of SNS, the patch attached to SLING-2078 can't be applied because it isn't backwards compatible. If this behavior is desired, it must be explicitly requested using a request parameter (or a configuration setting, but I think a request parameter would make more sense). Justin > > -Bertrand > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel rule 4 >
