jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roland Porath" <rol...@exari.com>
Subject RE: properties on collections
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:23:31 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:anchela@day.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2008 8:49 PM
> To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Subject: Re: properties on collections
> 
> hi roland
> 
> > I had to add mix:versionable to nt:file to get the rfc 32553 (versioning
> > extensions) to work.
> 
> > Is there a better way of doing that?
> 
> i'd say so.
> actually i had the impression that according to rfc 3253
> the VERSION_CONTROL request is used to put a resource
> under version control... what i does internally (or at
> least what it is expected to do: add mix:versionable
> to the node representing the requested resource).
> 
> if i'm missing something or if you simply want your
> resources to be version-controlled by default you
> may do:
> 
> variant a)
> -------------------------------------------------------
> mixin types can be added to a node on demand by
> calling Node.addMixin.
> if you want your nt:file nodes to be versionable
> without having to make an VERSION_CONTROL request,
> you may modify the DefaultHandler (or create your
> own extension) that by default calls Node.addMixin("mix:versionable")
> after creating the nt:file node.
> 
> variant b)
> -------------------------------------------------------
> create a custom nodetype that extends from both
> nt:file and mix:versionable. and use this one as non-collection
> nodetype instead of nt:file.
> 
> i would prefer variant a) as long as that is the
> only extension you need. if you really have the
> need for a 'real' custom nodetype, i would choose b).
> 

Currently I see no reason why we should need a new nodetype. So I'll have a
closer look a t variant a

Thanks

roland
> angela
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:47aad3ca101571168619736!



Mime
View raw message