From graffito-dev-return-1592-apmail-incubator-graffito-dev-archive=www.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Feb 14 09:05:46 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-graffito-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 99240 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2007 09:05:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Feb 2007 09:05:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 18954 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2007 09:05:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact graffito-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: graffito-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list graffito-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18936 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2007 09:05:52 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:05:51 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of christophe.lombart@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.174] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:05:41 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y2so133647uge for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:05:20 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ipRTc10B8TpQhDGhf3MwZa9+22joszW5mT4IgTK2q0kH/3cdt8BfGhfz+1afR3HXYXSTWetLgoATpXIcyEL2LHmk9VwQQKf2ZRV7UstV5k+5O6uLgaSDTBrvmBZOSzvUFH/ryE4N6RrlYjsRxkYs3d13m4q6koEm1If6koe9v/Y= Received: by 10.78.165.16 with SMTP id n16mr79097hue.1171443918279; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.130.18 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:05:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3b728ee90702140105u2865ccbcw2b756f4e6011e4ef@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:05:18 +0100 From: "Christophe Lombart" To: graffito-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Graffito status followup In-Reply-To: <510143ac0702132332q35fe19c0l586d2db398821145@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <510143ac0702020353g50f7c326m38172ec0f4c59b78@mail.gmail.com> <3b728ee90702050406o766cc581p8f118ccfc20b5b06@mail.gmail.com> <3b728ee90702130038g6bab1a33ne9a41bccc86ff07a@mail.gmail.com> <510143ac0702132332q35fe19c0l586d2db398821145@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On 2/14/07, Jukka Zitting wrote: > > a. "Graffito Core" : all necessary low-level services to define, store, > > manage, audit, request and search content. If needed, it can give an access > > to different heterogenous content servers (JCR and propriatary servers). > > Graffito core have to be extensible. For example, a workflow service could > > be added into "Graffito Core". > > Personally I'm most interested in a pure JCR solution, but a pluggable > storage layer is also fine. Me too. I just want to maximize the abstraction between application layers. Using the JCR backend + our OCM tools will be more extensible than a DB + OJB or Hibernate. If everybody are agree, I'm ok to drop the OJB support. We can have a persistence later which access to several JCR content repos. > What I'm most interested in at this level is the content model. > Currently Graffito has a predefined set of Document and other content > types, but also uses generic bean persistence. Should the "Graffito > Content Model" be fixed by better specifying the core content > interfaces, or should the Graffito Core support arbitrary content > objects? > Good question. So, this is certainly the first tech aspect to review. Our persistence layer should not force the developer to use a specific content model. He should have the freedom to define its own interfaces and classes. The current CmsObject has be also optional. JCR and our OCM tools gives us this kind of flexibility. So, it should be possible to have similar think in the core Graffito components. At least try to have it with a prototype. and you ? How do you see our content model ? br, Christophe