Hi,
On 2/14/07, Christophe Lombart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/14/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I'm most interested in at this level is the content model.
> Currently Graffito has a predefined set of Document and other content
> types, but also uses generic bean persistence. Should the "Graffito
> Content Model" be fixed by better specifying the core content
> interfaces, or should the Graffito Core support arbitrary content
> objects?
Good question. So, this is certainly the first tech aspect to review.
Our persistence layer should not force the developer to use a specific
content model. He should have the freedom to define its own interfaces
and classes. The current CmsObject has be also optional. JCR and our
OCM tools gives us this kind of flexibility. So, it should be possible
to have similar think in the core Graffito components. At least try to
have it with a prototype.
Agreed. Having a fixed content model would effectively make Graffito
just another content management system instead of a framework for such
systems. However, having a flexible content model poses a number of
open questions like how to handle typing or how to enforce specific
relationships between documents or objects. JCR handles this quite
nicely with the node type system. This is actually one of the main
reasons why I'd rather make Graffito just JCR-based, as otherwise
we'll need to come up with a similar typing mechanism that covers also
other backend systems.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
