jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Aemisegger <develo...@pagnolia.ch>
Subject Re: Maintaining reference relations between repositories
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:35:46 GMT
Dear David

David Nuescheler wrote:
>>Suppose two repositories, an author and a public repository. You can activate
>>content from one to the other. The two repositories are physically separated,
>>maybe located on different machines.
> the term "activation" has no meaning in the realm of a content 
> repository. since i know exactly where this term stems from, 
> i think i understand that you talk about replication or syndication of 
> content from one repository to the other.

That's exactly what I mean.

>>My use case are references to nodes (e.g. links to a page or an asset) that are
>>of subtype mix:referenceable. The challenge we encounter is that the read only
>>property 'jcr:uuid' is generated automatically while activating and thus
>>references are lost.
>>How can you ensure that references in the author repository are respected in
>>the public repository?
> export/import can keep the uuid's beyond the boundaries of a repository. 
> it seems like the obvious solution to me... what did you have in mind?

This is one option we could imagine to go for. I simply wanted to ask for 
proven solutions with the use case in mind. Reading ' Roundtripping', I 
can see what you mean.

We are a bit worried to introduce dependencies on a specific repository 
implementation. Reading chapter 7.2 "Level 2 repositories must support the 
import of content from either of the standard XML mappings, system view and 
document view [...]" makes me think that for level 2 repositories import/export 
is supported. But only the system view garantuees completeness and allows for 
roundtripping. Since the spec doesn't force level 2 repositories to supply a 
system view (either system view or document view), we might run into difficulties.

Am I missing something or is my argument just practically irrelevant?


View raw message