jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jr3 optional features]
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:58:31 GMT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Michael Dürig <michid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28.2.12 13:17, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
>> Am 23.02.2012 um 12:33 schrieb Michael Dürig:
>>> Having node.type.management.orderable.child.nodes.supported = false
>>> might be a bit harsh. But orderable child node lists and large number of
>>> child nodes are definitely in each other's way. I think we should come
>>> up with a way to let users choose.
>> Users can already chose: using the node type parameter "orderable".
>> A repository-global decision to use either or does not really help, as in
>> most cases you will have the need for both cases (huge unordered bunch +
>> smaller ordered list).
> That's right and I think this is the way to go. We should however make it
> clear, that having orderable child nodes comes with a cost.
> A remaining issue is that currently nt:unstructured is orderable. So we
> might want to factor orderable out into a mixin.

i have no idea how that would work. can you please give an example?

we could add a new node type (e.g. nt:scalable), specified like nt:unstructered
but with orderable=false.


> Michael

View raw message