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 06:00:24 GMT

On 4/8/07, Pavel Konnikov <konnikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:02:46 +0400, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you plan to keep also test results in the repository?
> Initially I didn't plan to keep information of test resulting, cause I
> think it would complicate demo-application. In case of need It would
> be possible to realize result keeping.

OK. I don't think it's needed for the demo application, just wanted to
check if you had planned something like that since it would affect
content modeling at least somewhat.

> > BTW, I would assume that the "weight" of a question would be relative
> > to a test in which the question appearsh.
> The maximum for the test would result of simple sum of results for each
> question. I agree that the information of how much put to the question in
> each test (That would depend on the test complexity) should be pointed
> at test forming. As we are trying to simplify most things, we could leave
> this and settle the question point static at the place it would be kept.

OK, sounds good.

> > Also, as discussed for tagging in Nandana's proposal, it would
> > probably make sense to have the test nodes reference the topics
> > associated with the test:
> >
> >     - topics (REFERENCE) mandatory multiple < 'mu:topic'
> Should I keep the information about test topic? I'll try to explain why shouldn't
> You do that. Imagine the situation of  "JSP & Servlets" test existence. The
> topics "Java programming", "Web programming" exist. It's clear, that reference
> to test "JSP & Servlets" would be both in the topic "Java programming" and
> "Web programming". But in the test by itself there would be only reference on
> topic "Java programming" and no reference on "Web programming". The problem
> of consistency information support appears. In that case you'd better leave
> one-way relation: topic -> tests.

References in JCR are essentially two-way relations that you can
traverse both ways, using Property.getNode() and Node.getReferences().
This allows the reference properties to be placed on either end of the

In your content model a test "has a" topic (or topics), but there's
nothing inherent in topic model that says it only applies to tests.
For example it would be perfectly reasonable to use topics also to
categorize the question packages. Instead of adding a separate "-
packages (REFERENCE) < 'my:question-package'" property definition to
the topic node definition, it makes more sense to add a "- topics
(REFERENCE) < 'mu:topic'" property to the question package nodes.
Alternatively you should generalize the mu:topic definition to allow
reference to any mix:referenceable nodes.

> Repository sturcture example (in path-view):
> [...]
> Custom types in CND:
> [...]

Looks very good, thanks!


Jukka Zitting

View raw message