incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christophe Lombart" <christophe.lomb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Graffito status
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:42:45 GMT
On 1/11/07, Torgeir Veimo <torgeir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:00 +0100, Christophe Lombart wrote:
> > Furthermore, it is more interesting to access to different
> > content servers in the same time (even if there are all based on JCR).
> So,
> > I'm not sure the architecture could be simplify here. What do you think
> > about that ?
>
> I thought one of the goals of JCR was to be _the_ common api for content
> repositories. Abstracting away JCR might seem rational to one developer,
> but for another it's a drawback. Does the persistence manager provide
> all the services that the JCR api provides, such as versioning,
> transaction, types properties, xpath and sql queries, etc?


Day after day yes


What about
> jackrabbit enhancements, such as node type registration etc?



In my point of view, this should be managed by the JCR plugin (not the
persistence manager).


We like to make abstraction by using some layers. It increases the
architecture complexity and code but you are more independent of the
technologies you are using. This choice can be review but personally I think
it is more interesting to make abstraction.

The Graffito complexity can be reduce here : either we want to use the JCR
API in our different content services or we want to maximize abstraction by
using POJO's (like now). If the second solution is our choice, we have to
find a way to increase the Graffito community because it is a big deal.






--
> Torgeir Veimo <torgeir@pobox.com>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message