On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
The parameter is already on the operation :replace. But it is not respected in a few cases. However as I stated in the ticket I am a bit shy of modifying that code as I don't know why it is written the way it is. > > Justin > >> >> -Bertrand >> >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel rule 4 >> >
