incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christophe Lombart <>
Subject Re: JCR integration proposal
Date Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:40:50 GMT
Let's give the choice to the user framework to use or not (custom) node 


Sandro Böhme wrote:

> Hello,
> Oliver Kiessler wrote:
>> hi sandro,
>> I am not sure why "node type safety" is such an important issue.
> Because if it turns out, that using node types for bean classes is the
> wrong way it will be very hard to fix in our project. In comparison to 
> that, API changes should not be a big problem.
> I'am really looking forward to implement things, but first I need to
> make sure, the basic idea is not wrong and I work in the right direction.
> If necessary, I will collect the pro's and con's of our discussion and 
> then finally ask for some kind of simple vote at the
> jackrabbit mailing list (like no custom nodetypes/few custom
> nodetypes/bean class=custom nodetype).
> I checked your initial source code of the mapping. But as the example 
> is using a custom nodetype I don't see any advantages for not using 
> custom nodes.
>> Whether I reflect on the node properties of an unstructured node or
>> whether I reflect on a node type definition, does not make such a big
>> difference to me. Am I missing something?
> For me it would just be a redesigning of node types. The node type spec
> would be redundant in every single node of the same type.
>> I think custom node types are definately an issue to some extent but I
>> am not sure if a new node type needs to created for every bean class
>> type that needs to persisted. A base node type makes sense in my mind.
> If you start having an own node type, you start being dependant on a
> special JCR implementation. Because node type registration is not part
> of the JCR spec. Having no custom node types at all, would surely make 
> it easier to exchange JCR implementations. I'am not sure if it an 
> added value to have something between. But I think you already know that.
> Regards,
> Sandro
>> regards,
>> oliver

View raw message