Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of quintesse@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.175 as permitted sender)
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:references;
        b=kUefIRcFbihp3J9hmZlPXSZ5QtO7NBGmH8UnnMEkJjgmSdozC0yCktUlVfQjp9qZYMEl3ppMhsyDFk6sDzjDA+Ct6uPUPZfhTTT3OxcV4H4pzfqoWOZzWdVHkf/5aOIvNJDTVjSd6N98RL4Pex1E51iQ2PDhUoWmVzjM2bopZLE=
Message-ID: <8641fd7c0707241547x3e860034gf3e66b919f15a365@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:47:54 +0200
From: "Tako Schotanus" <quintesse@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: 3.1.3.1 Removing Items
In-Reply-To: <46A65764.3010905@yourmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_171489_20479485.1185317274335"
References: <469F7E7C.4090906@yourmail.com>
	 <750B668E-8A1D-4B4F-A19F-20B6F74FB38A@gbiv.com>
	 <46A517DB.5080904@yourmail.com>
	 <8641fd7c0707231508i5c1906a8v8b3970a2bd62b1b7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A63A05.2070701@yourmail.com>
	 <8641fd7c0707241056u2897d6c5h278ea2bb87e49e0a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A63DFE.3000209@yourmail.com> <46A643BD.70603@yourmail.com>
	 <8641fd7c0707241210r3e1e6188q7739f2c7eecbef92@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46A65764.3010905@yourmail.com>

------=_Part_171489_20479485.1185317274335
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 7/24/07, IvanLatysh <ivan@yourmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tako Schotanus wrote:
>
> > Ivan, I do understand what you mean, I really do.
> > The CVS vs SVN just isn't a good example IMO because there was no other
> way
> > to get empty folders stored in CVS.
> > A very important secondary reason is that the information must
> necessarily
> > be retrieved from CVS as you put it in, that is the reason it exists!
> While
> > a JCR can be compared more to a database: you decide how to put the
> > information in, how to get it out and what it all means.
> Thank you for your example it is the most advanced work-around that I may
> think
> of. And I can see it working to ease developers pain.
>
>   As a side effect this solution will force to relax node type definition.
> For instance (foo:required-field) node type should be added.
> As well as value type is not known at this moment unless foo:field
> node-type has
> value;integer-value;date-value, ... etc. Or some other mechanism to define
> the type.
>
> Again, thank you for an excellent work-around.


And thanks for an incredibly sarcastic response, was that really necessary?

------=_Part_171489_20479485.1185317274335--