jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: why no pattern for item definition names?
Date Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:05:23 GMT
On 08.04.11 15:46, "Omid" <omilani@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sure it's not something that must be this way. I solved this by moving
>map2 ones into a new child node so they became like map2/@key=value.
>But why forcing the structure if there's nothing against enabling
>patterns? I guess this pattern of naming nodes & properties is used a
>lot (for map-like access in browsing), and now if we want different
>types for two maps they should be separated into two nodes.

You can use residual properties "*" and have different types for each
property, on demand.

I understand your reasoning, but from experience I can tell you, if you go
"partially" unstructured, go the whole way. Whenever you come up with a
new "map-something" property pattern, you have to update your node types.
With fully unstructured nodes you don't.


Alexander Klimetschek
Developer // Adobe (Day) // Berlin - Basel

View raw message