jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christoph Kiehl <christ...@sulu3000.de>
Subject Re: Nodetype reregistration and JackrabbitNodeTypeManager
Date Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:24:55 GMT
Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Am Montag, den 13.08.2007, 10:31 +0200 schrieb Christoph Kiehl:
>>> What do you think of option two in my original mail, regardless of when the new
>>> nodetype management API is available?
>> Honestly, while I agree to not grow the API, I favor the first option,
>> as modifying the implementation to re-register node types would change
>> the API (contract) - and this I dislike even more than growing the
>> API...
> -1 for option 2.
> i agree with felix. after all there's a clear distinction between registering a
> new type vs modifying an existing type, like e.g. in sql dml: 'create table'
> vs 'alter table'.

In general I agree with not changing the contract etc. but I thought in this 
context it might be feasible. I of course know that there is a difference 
between create and alter but I was unsure if someone really relies on this 
contract in the context of node type registration.
But because you both dislike option 2, I would rather not change the API (option 
1) but wait for the new node type management API of JCR 2.0 to be available 
since it's already possible to reregister nodetypes just not through RMI.


View raw message