Re: [gatein-dev] New field on node type gtn:visible - how to migrate the data?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Julien, All, During the merging for this feature, some test failures occurred. While debugging it, I've found out that on the mixin approach, the following code renders to false, when it shouldn't: adapter.isAdapted(Visible.class) Changing it from Visible.class to RestrictAccess.class (which inherits from Visible) makes the calling code to work. While this wouldn't be such a big problem in GateIn itself, as there are only a couple of places that makes such call, there's still a question on how this could affect eXo or other Gatein-based products. As this is not part of the public API, I don't think it would be a big problem, but it would still be risky. Another question is whether said code should render "true". My understanding is that it should indeed render to true, which then makes me wonder if there's something missing on the implementation or if there's a bug down there (on isAdapted method, or at the JCR level). If the current behavior of the Adapter code and JCR are indeed correct, as well as the implementation (ie: isAdapted should render "false"), then I'd say that it's better to go back to the previous approach, having RestrictAccess independent from Visible. This way, we don't affect current code that calls isAdapted(Visible.class). Best, Juca. On 02/18/2014 10:58 AM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote: > All, > > We are planning on merging this feature by Monday next week, if > there are no objections. So, please let me know if there's anything > else that would need a change/improvement. > > Thanks! Juca. > > On 02/11/2014 04:40 PM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote: > > All, > > > > I've done the proposed changes, and the squashed new branch is > > available here: > > https://github.com/jpkrohling/gatein-portal/compare/BZ794359-HidePageIfPu... > > > > > > What I'm not sure, however, is whether I need to duplicate the > > fields from Visible (will check the JCR spec in the meantime), > > but it seems that's indeed a requirement, as I've seen it done > > in another inherited type (though, it wasn't a mixin). > > > > > > I'm specially interested in comments about the code on > > NavigationServiceImpl, RestrictAccess and gatein-nodetypes.xml, > > but a review on the other parts would be just as awesome :-) > > > > > > Juca. _______________________________________________ gatein-dev > > mailing list gatein-dev(a)lists.jboss.org (mailto:gatein-dev@lists.jboss.org) > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/gatein-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ gatein-dev mailing > list gatein-dev(a)lists.jboss.org (mailto:gatein-dev@lists.jboss.org) > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/gatein-dev >