Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 6670 invoked from network); 31 May 2007 10:15:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 May 2007 10:15:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 98915 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2007 10:15:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 98672 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2007 10:15:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 98662 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2007 10:15:55 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 03:15:55 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.242 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.242] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.242) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 03:15:50 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so61810anc for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 03:15:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rZ2jUqd47ByjIoRkyI+yZBS9AjGM6fCtv04Eksq1jIW+XezKpL2MlvVeZzT0dzeZL7YG51KPmyceYewHZFw9btVcZNHClAkOMvtFkhu1vZia1thpADjjyWEro7vmKOOZOhXhmdcn7NYpln//vjuTgJ+uP7NjRNVg2jX+a+8g39U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YCMWcWZ4Ab6XqMY9wft2TAgRkZtve5nLBJrgZzfFXDJtJNU2t1EGQB1a80eLNOgVUAPVGrm1ibLFYRjehCrKw2r6kfDn34mjpIRAoEHlgWroHll16mOjhneEdSjoizIkKWRIFWf5OzybSLLKzaTiF0rFnkfTtc5rt7Kvh+KszLU= Received: by 10.100.125.5 with SMTP id x5mr213015anc.1180606529414; Thu, 31 May 2007 03:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.191.18 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 03:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <510143ac0705310315n82596e3n17ea84b8cdd80f8b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:15:29 +0300 From: "Jukka Zitting" To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Architectural question (CM application) In-Reply-To: <10890467.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <10890467.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On 5/31/07, Luca Tagliani wrote: > - each customer is divided into sub-area; each sub-area can have different > definition of the same nodetype What's the rationale for this requirement? Could you solve it by making your node types more unstructured, or by allowing customer-specific extensions with mixin types or child nodes? BR, Jukka Zitting