On 27/08/10 02:25, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
And you only make node types for those things where you are sure they
are more or less fixed. For other things you keep going with
nt:unstructured. The same way that mandatory properties change in your
case, you will have the opposite, ie. that things that were mandatory
become unnecessary, so generally a more relaxed approach is good for
the long-term. That adds some more complexity to the application logic
accessing the content (ie. it no longer expects total integrity hold
by the underlying storage), but this also makes it more resilient.
Yes, those points are straightforward.
The example I gave was an application providing access through
Jackrabbit's WebDAV module. That case is different from a typical webapp
because there's no clear means of adding "application logic" (or, at
least, there wasn't when I tried in 2009). Using a WebDAV client, users
can create/modify arbitrary nodes and properties, which makes node types
quite useful.
(I personally don't see the problem with changing constraints between
software releases. My experience with writing Rails migrations, for
example, was that I could apply maximum constraints and it wasn't a pain
at all changing them. Some people are happy with the implications of
nt:unstructured, but I don't see why applying node types should be seen
as so labourious.)
Later
Charlie
