jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: jackrabbit-jcr-demo. Another idea.
Date Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:42:32 GMT
Hi,

On 4/8/07, Tako Schotanus <java@codejive.org> wrote:
> Just a question Jukka. You keep saying things like:
>
> > [mu:topics] > nt:folder
> > >    + topic (mu:topic)
> >
> > No need for a custom node type where nt:folder is good enough.
>
> What are your reasons for this exactly? Is that just a personal choice of
> yours because, let's say, you don't like strict definitions or is there some
> kind of technical reason to avoid introducing too many custom types?

There's no technical reason to avoid custom types, Jackrabbit can
easily manage thousands of types if needed.

The reason to prefer using the standard types where possible is
because it makes the content model more "understandable" to generic
JCR clients that have no knowledge of the appliction internals. For
example using nt:folders here makes it easy to mount the content tree
as a folder in your file system using WebDAV support in Jackrabbit and
to for example add or modify attachment files within the tree (this is
more useful for the blog application, but might come in handy also for
the test application).

Using the standard types also gives you an extra level of flexibility
(normally when you create a custom type you want to constrain things
more), which I personally find very useful. In general I tend to let
the content tree structure remail fairly flexible and use primary node
types to dispatch appropriate processing for the nodes within the
tree.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message