jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christophe Lombart" <christophe.lomb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OCM: why not to hide ugly init code?
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:52:58 GMT
If I understand you, your proposal is something like this :
1. If the class is mapped to the unstructured node type or a node type
that gives you  the possibility to add extra properties, create a new
property "ocm_classname".
2. If it  is not possible to add this property due to strong
constrains in the corresponding node type, try to add the mixin type
"ocm:discriminator" (if necessary).

Is it something like this ?


On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Alex Lukin <lukin@stu.cn.ua> wrote:
> Wednesday 12 March 2008 00:34:27 Christophe Lombart написав:
>  > Just one comment :
>  >
>  > The OCM has to be completely independent of Jackrabbit core. By this
>  > way, it can be used with other JCR implementation. As you can see,
>  > Jackrabbit core is only used for the unit tests.
>  > That's why the code is so ugly ... until there is a standard way to
>  > add new node types.
>  I see.
>  So my Jira Isuue and patch has to be deleted.
>  Node type registration is standard in JSR-283 so we have to wait when it will be ready.
>  Anyway, use of custom node types is not quite mandatory for OCM. It is possible to use
some hidden property to store needed info.
>  --
>  SY, Alex Lukin
View raw message