I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-11397 to track this. Konrad
> On 16. Jan 2025, at 09:30, Konrad Windszus <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > Well, the equivalent from Oak in > https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/trunk/oak-core-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/namepath/NameMapper.java > only provides mappings from JCR (Expanded or Qualified) to Oak internal form > (which always uses prefixes IIUC) but not the other way around. But maybe I > miss something here… > > Konrad > > > >> On 16. Jan 2025, at 08:24, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke.apa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On 15.01.2025 20:57, Konrad Windszus wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I am wondering what is the best way to get the expanded form name >>> (https://developer.adobe.com/experience-manager/reference-materials/spec/jcr/2.0/3_Repository_Model.html#3.2.5.1%20Expanded%20Form) >>> from a given javax.jcr.Item (Node or Property). There is no method exposed >>> directly from >>> https://developer.adobe.com/experience-manager/reference-materials/spec/javax.jcr/javadocs/jcr-2.0/javax/jcr/Item.html. >>> However there are some edge cases where you want to compare the returned >>> names with the stable qualified form (regardless of potential >>> session/global mapping). >>> There are workaround which require the consumer to deal with >>> org.apache.jackrabbit.spi.commons.conversion.NameResolver >>> (https://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/2.20/org/apache/jackrabbit/spi/commons/conversion/NameResolver.html), >>> however there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to retrieve it (at least in >>> Oak, while JR2 implemented this via its >>> https://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/2.20/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/SessionImpl.html). >>> Am I missing something here? >>> WDYT about adding a JackrabbitItem to >>> https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/apidocs/org/apache/jackrabbit/api/package-summary.html >>> which extends javax.jcr.Item to expose a “String getExpandedName()”? >>> Thanks for your input in advance, >>> Konrad >> >> The actual operation is not that complex, right? (A simple concatenation). >> >> But yes, we could add that (it would even come with a default implementation >> we never would have to override). >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >
