jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jacco van Weert" <1111softw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about node type changes
Date Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:13:00 GMT
Hello,

Alltough I am not a "database guy" at all, I understand the need of more
strictly defined nodetypes.
This will prevent a repository being thrashed with invalid data in case of
application code bugs.

In order for JCR/Jackrabbit to be accepted as mature storage engine there
should be some sort of data migration option.


Greetings,

    Jacco


On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Nicolas Dufour <nrdufour@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just a piece of advice Alfie: DONT use nodetypes unless you absolutely need
> them.
>
> I mean, if you are sure 100% that your content will never ever change, then
> ok define a nodetype and its properties.
> If you think your content will change a bit from time to time and you need
> to classify it by nodetype then define a nodetype with nr:unstructured as
> primaryType.
>
> For any other cases: use nt:unstructured !
>
> Nicolas
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Brian Thompson <elephantium@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Dufour
>



-- 
-------------------------------------
Jacco van Weert -- 1111software@gmail.com
JCR Controller -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~weertj/jcr
JeCARS -- http://jecars.sourceforge.net

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