jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Thompson" <elephant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about node type changes
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:05:46 GMT
In a way, Jackrabbit already supports a 'lax' mode; just use nt:unstructured
for all your nodes.  No structure will be mandated.

-Brian

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Alfie Kirkpatrick <
Alfie.Kirkpatrick@ioko.com> wrote:

> I'm new to Jackrabbit and have read with interest some of the archive posts
> and JIRAs on the evolving support for changes to node type definitions when
> there are active nodes using those definitions. These seem to assume as
> fundamental that a node shall always conform to its node type.
>
> From a site development point of view where Jackrabbit might be the content
> repository, this causes some concern to me. Sites change, requirements
> change. To me the node type definition should be more of a guide to the
> intent for the structure of the node rather than enforce very strict
> validation. To me it's a bit like the question whether an XML editor with
> DTD/schema validation should ever allow an invalid document to be created,
> even temporarily. Most end up taking the approach that it's sometimes
> necessary to make a document invalid on the way to making it valid again,
> and this seems reasonable to me.
>
> So my question is really whether Jackrabbit is ever likely to support a
> 'lax' mode where node types can be changed even if this causes existing
> nodes to become invalid, or whether it's part of the fundamental design that
> this should not be possible, ever.
>
> Apologies if this goes over old ground and thanks in advance for your
> interest.
> Alfie.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message