abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RT] More generic datamodel for JcrCollectionProvider & JCR v2.0
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:36:49 GMT
Although my knowledge of the JCR is limited, generally speaking, the 
less abdera-specific invention we need, the better.  If there are 
existing types that can be leveraged and mapped to corresponding Atom 
types, then we should be using them.

- James

David Nuescheler wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> this is probably mostly a question for Dan.
> Currently the JcrCollectionProvider uses an Abdera namespace
> and an Abdera specific nodetype. Which basically means that
> Abdera uses JCR to persist its content, but would not
> expose existing arbitrary "content" to Atom. As far as I can tell,
> this has never been a design goal of the JcrCollectionProvider, so
> there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...
> When looking at the information set of Atom and comparing it to
> some of the additional "mixin types" specified in the public review
> document of JSR-283 [1] where we specify the following...
> mix:title
> [mix:title] mixin
>   - jcr:title (string)
>   - jcr:description (string)
> mix:created
> [mix:created] mixin
>   - jcr:created (date)
>   - jcr:createdBy (string)
> mix:lastModified
> [mix:lastModified] mixin
>   - jcr:lastModified (date)
>   - jcr:lastModifiedBy (string)
> ...there are similarities that lead me to believe that we
> could use either these mixin nodetypes or at least just the same
> property names.
> In turn this would mean that we don't really need an Abdera specific nodetype
> or an Abdera specific namespace at least for these properties, but abdera
> could read from any node that exposes the above mixins.
> I think this would allow to map a simple Atom feed just off of arbitrary content
> living in a JSR-283 compliant repository. In my mind I could see something
> like the following "Atom Element" to "JCR Property" mapping:
> atom:title -> jcr:title
> atom:updated -> jcr:lastModified
> atom:author -> jcr:createdBy
> atom:id -> jcr:uuid
> etc...
> Does that make sense?
> In my mind this would allow content repository applications that are not
> specifically Abdera aware (like our blog: http://dev.day.com) to
> simply expose an Atom interface by just running Abdera on the
> same existing workspace.
> Maybe this is beyond the purpose of the current implementation...
> Of course JSR-283 is not final yet, but I just wanted to check
> if anybody else thought that this more generic approach could
> make sense.
> regards,
> david
> [1] http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/pr/jsr283/

View raw message