Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nrdufour@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=FmuS0lY1Nr02O83mV1jmmzBdO7XRvOsthr+PCpjxp1JKt87AxTIdLDOa88WxtqbITcYlQFj6fxjybFEBDxbyo9XPlWXdT76+MF2HOyoEKWQv60mFkppHS+wnlhPwyX5EeoAC26s2ynlbv08sjUvdUexfMqmmcwJg6xyBJed5sxg=
Message-ID: <8503442c0804150713h7664a2dbu9f9e01b633149a04@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:13:30 -0400
From: "Nicolas Dufour" <nrdufour@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Are the node types the root of evil ?
In-Reply-To: <ffd6aaa90804141008s7cd6f67dw3ce92f7d42cb45ef@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_20587_15189360.1208268810753"
References: <8503442c0804140652x230a3287g7a1d7c0cc4936c66@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4803669B.1030401@proteanit.net> <48036AFE.9000703@gmail.com>
	 <ffd6aaa90804141008s7cd6f67dw3ce92f7d42cb45ef@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_20587_15189360.1208268810753
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

In fact, I'm extremely tempted that our next version will include only
nt:unstructured node types and everything will be controlled
programmatically.

Even export/import could be a pain, specially if the site cant be down for a
long time.
If I can create a background migration system I will be happy ;)

Nicolas

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Tobias Bocanegra <tobias.bocanegra@day.com>
wrote:

> it depends on the use case. but in general i agree that
> nt:unstructured is sufficient for most apps.
> the restriction that nodetypes can't be changed (reregistered) is a
> problem of jackrabbit which will be fixed soon. also the lack of
> altering the nodetypes of existing node is something that is addressed
> in jcr283.
>
> stefano and david wrote some interesting articles about that:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel
> http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/93/<http://www.betaversion.org/%7Estefano/linotype/news/93/>
>
> --
> regards, toby
>
>
> On 4/14/08, Ivan Latysh <ivanlatysh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Charles Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Surely this is analagous to constraints and referential integrity
> through
> > key relationships in the RDBMS model? The same things could be said
> about
> > dispensing with anything other than application layer integrity and
> > validation in that model.
> > >
> >  You can alter RDBMS structure, when JR missing such functionality.
> >  (I haven't checked latest release, yet)
> >
> >  So unless you are 200% sure of what you have to have, don't use
> NodeTypes.
> >
> >  So far we alter structure this way:
> >  backup (with JCR-Backup) -> change node types -> create new repo ->
> update
> > backed-up XML -> restore it.
> >
> >  --
> >  Ivan Latysh
> >  IvanLatysh@gmail.com
> >
>


-- 
Nicolas Dufour
nrdufour@gmail.com

------=_Part_20587_15189360.1208268810753--