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 Best Practices/Design Patterns (an attempt)
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:11:25 GMT

On Nov 7, 2007 11:23 PM, loproman <loproman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On my class example, if I might defend my thinking a bit it seems like in
> larger systems, the loosely typed nature of JCR objects (in particular
> Node and Property) could become a problem. Unless these are wrapped
> with objects, I could imagine there being many references to the same
> node in many places.

Sounds like another case of the classical strong/loose typing debate.
You make a good point and I agree that strong typing certainly has
lots of value (I'm still a Java weenie :-), but there's also a
downside of requiring extra code whenever you want to introduce a new
field or some new access pattern. A fixed data access layer can easily
become a bottleneck for many features like search, versioning,
unstructured content, etc. There's no single correct way to solve that
tradeoff for all people and projects.

> Aside from being strongly typed, I feel like it presents opportunities to
> build in domain logic on top of my nodes.

Agreed, but then you're already moving from a pure data layer closer
to the logic or control layer. In fact I believe that for many MVC
applications you can use JCR as-is as the model, i.e. have both the
view and controller parts use the JCR API directly without a separate
layer on top of it.

PS. There's been some related debate on the mailing list of the
incubating Sling project.


Jukka Zitting

View raw message