I have a JCR content repository implemented in ModeShape (4.0.0.Final). The structure of the repository is quite simple and looks like this:
/ (root)
Content/
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
...
Tags/
Foo/
Bar/
.../
The content is initially created and stored under /Content
as [nt:unstructured]
nodes with [mix:shareable]
mixin. When a content item is tagged, the tag node is first created under /Tags
if it's not already there, and the content node is shared/cloned to the tag node using Workspace.clone(...)
as described in the JCR 2.0 spec, section 14.1, Creation of Shared Nodes.
(I don't find this particularly elegant and I did just read this answer, about creating a tag based search system in JCR, so I realize this might not be the best/fastest/most scaleable solution. But I "inherited" this solution from developers before me, so I hope I don't have to rewrite it all...)
Anyway, the sharing itself seems to work (I can verify that the nodes are there using the ModeShape Content Explorer web app or programatically by session.getRootNode().getNode("Tags/Foo").getNodes()
). But I am not able to find any shared nodes using a query!
My initial try (using JCR_SQL2
syntax) was:
SELECT * FROM [nt:unstructured] AS content
WHERE PATH(content) LIKE '/Tags/Foo/%' // ISDECENDANTNODE(content, '/Tags/Foo') gives same result
ORDER BY NAME(content)
The result set was to my surprise empty.
I also tried searching in [mix:shareable]
like this:
SELECT * FROM [mix:shareable] AS content
WHERE PATH(content) LIKE '/Tags/Foo/%' // ISDECENDANTNODE(content, '/Tags/Foo') gives same result
ORDER BY NAME(content)
This also returned an empty result set.
I can see from the query:
SELECT * FROM [nt:unstructured] AS content
WHERE PATH(content) LIKE '/Content/%' // ISDECENDANTNODE(content, '/Content') works just as well
ORDER BY NAME(content)
...that the query otherwise works, and returns the expected result (all content). It just doesn't work when searching for the shared nodes.
How do I correctly search for shared nodes in JCR using ModeShape?
Update: I upgraded to 4.1.0.Final to see if that helped, but it had no effect on the described behaviour.