jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From IvanLatysh <i...@yourmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
Date Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:23:57 GMT
IvanLatysh wrote:

>> I'm sorry, these are not workarounds, but perfectly valid alternatives,
>> you've given one, some of us don't agree with your solution and I've 
>> shown
>> that you could easily think of several others. I don't see why your 
>> way of
>> doing things is somehow superior and "the only way" of solving your 
>> problem.
> 
> Again data structure stored in JCR are data itself, and removing a 
> property cause does lose.

I need to explain what do I mean here ...

As I can see many participants use JCR with known (defined) data structured.
We do not know the data structure up-front, and for us data structure as much 
important as the data itself.

I want to draw an analogy with CVS and Subversion.
As you know CVS does not check-out empty folders (by default).
So many dev. teams had to put some placeholders to force CVS to checkout this 
folder. As we all can see from our practice, dev. team value FS structure as 
much as the source code. Many teams used such work-around (not solution) until 
Subversion come around. On the other hand CVS does not allow to remove a folder, 
that cause quite a bit of pain for many teams. And now most people agree that it 
is a synthetic restrictions that make no sense.
So Subversion come around and teams start switching to it since it is flexible 
enough to fit their model.
Same thing happening with JCR null support. It is a synthetic restriction that 
many will live with until they have an alternative. But it does not mean that it 
is the right way to do.

This why I have seen a few work-around for the problem, but it does not mean 
that it is a right way to do. Again developers do not look for a work-around 
when library perform in expected manner.

-- 
Ivan Latysh
ivan@yourmail.com

Mime
View raw message