jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefan Guggisberg" <stefan.guggisb...@day.com>
Subject Re: node type managment: current state and possible directions?
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:56:15 GMT
hi christian

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Christian Sprecher
<christian_sprecher@magnet.ch> wrote:
> Hi all
> I have read several posts regarding current and future directions
> regarding node type management. I see that an issue has been created
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-322), but the discussion
> there seems to be stalled.
> What I am currently wondering is: how *should* node type management work
> in your opinion? E.g. looking at the following scenarios:
> * a new node type is defined requiring a (not yet) defined node type (as
> mandatory property, for example)
> 1: fails instantly
> 2: fails the first time a node of such a type is created
> 3: fails the first time such a node is persisted
> (I would expect nr 3)

IMO node type registration should fail instantly,
similar to an RDBMS, where you can't create a
table with an unknown column type (AFAIK).

> * a property is declared as being mandatory, but there are existing
> nodes of this node type having no such property
> 1: fails instantly
> 2: assumes a default value for this property
> 3: fails the first time such a node is persisted (being either a new or
> an updated one)
> (hmm, no clue here :))

IMO 1.

> * a node type is removed, but is used in another node type definition
> 1: fails instantly
> 2: replaces all appearances of this node type with its parent up the
> hierarchy (hmm, might be tough with multiple inheritance, but hey :))


> * what does happen with older versions of nodes that become incompatible
> with the new definition? Are node types versioned too?

node types are unfortuantely not versioned;
existing nodes which are incompatible with the current node type definition
should IMO be prevented.


> I am sure that there are more scenarios, but currently I am more
> interested in your general stance on this issue. Especially what is to
> be considered part of JCR 2.0 standard and what will be
> jackrabbit-specific.
> Thx for your feedback
View raw message