Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gcaj-jackrabbit-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
From: Christoph Kiehl <christoph@sulu3000.de>
Subject: Re: Nodetype reregistration and JackrabbitNodeTypeManager
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:31:45 +0200
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <f9p4t0$d80$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <f9l4rg$kn8$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <1186993320.3283.31.camel@bslm-046.corp.day.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
In-Reply-To: <1186993320.3283.31.camel@bslm-046.corp.day.com>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

Felix Meschberger wrote:

> I favour neither of both :-) I would favor a real node type management
> API, which would allow more fine grained control over the node type
> registration process (such an API will be coming with JCR 2).

I see ;) I definitely like to see this happening, but this sound like a rather 
big undertaken (which of course has to be done anyway for Jackrabbit 2.0).

But I still see the need for something like CND-based registration, because as 
you said it really eases starting up. It is helpful as well for registering 
default nodetypes which are not be managed by the application. It's much easier 
to maintenance a CND than some java code using an API.

What do you think of option two in my original mail, regardless of when the new 
nodetype management API is available?

Cheers,
Christoph