Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 13476 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2007 13:45:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Jul 2007 13:45:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7744 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2007 13:45:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 7730 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2007 13:45:43 -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 7717 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jul 2007 13:45:43 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:45:43 -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 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.247] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.247) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:45:39 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so293659anc for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:45:19 -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=G/ijtdtgGjMARRzKiyD0rDfohNgoXq9euZnS+uUI+42ZizYv6lZZD9/o7UhcVve7h0Y0Dh2XfrzNEINW+gvSxn0XogPzxQT1MW8cWKbJpy2JYkfQv3gt7RXpFW0LPpHwJjpzWViU78LBXkWiNymKbhoxBTvbT8ln7eXURgkyyuE= 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=U/yDeaQjzfRktmZ379NDlE+aQaktTPC03AsR1S45CQyv2Qc684RbhIuEKlOLKHnWftDQlO+YdzmPptiaRQmV9GmUwwWDUKPlj4Fgl4Ca9ALAFRIUfLif5Bi48LGSO0fHlw/U4pw+mOBXFQTi6P7spt3VkmTEplh6IR5/aAq9CDQ= Received: by 10.100.165.9 with SMTP id n9mr2190716ane.1184075118749; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.163.1 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <510143ac0707100645j27644331j6f6ae2f6d5974a51@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:45:18 +0300 From: "Jukka Zitting" To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: DM Rule #2: Drive the content hierarchy, don't let it happen. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On 7/7/07, David Nuescheler wrote: > What may be unexpected initially is why I wouldn't store the > "comments" with the "post", which is due to access control which I > would like to be applied in a reasonably hierarchical way. I'd much rather put the comments below the blog entries. That way the blog entry becomes self-contained and it is easy to move, copy, or export the entire entry in a single operation. I would even argue that controlling access on an entry level is better than globally in a separate tree. Local access control gives you the ability to selectively enable or disable comments on a given post. BR, Jukka Zitting