J. Wolfgang Kaltz wrote:
Michael Wechner schrieb:
(...)
it is ParentChildCreatorInterface (renamed to NodeCreatorInterface),
which is for documents. So I don't see what a parameter for
ParentChildCreatorInterface, which is used for documents, has to do
with assets.
one can imagine creating an Asset-Doctype which consists of Meta-Data
and a reference to
the actual asset
It's an interesting idea, but I don't see how this would have worked
in Lenya, even with the parameter that I removed.
we are currently building this for a customer and it seems to work very
well.
As soon as we have some more experience and time we will try to
generalize it and
donate it to Lenya if the community thinks it's useful, whereas I still
think the JCR
implementation has the highest priority and hope that we are able to
finish what we
have started within the sandbox
A resource type (formerly known as doctype), it seems to me, is very
much related to the concept of "editable XML". You define a schema for
it, you edit it with the XML editors; when rendered Lenya chooses an
XSLT sheet to transform that XML into some user-friendly
representation. How could the current Lenya mechanisms work if that
document was actually a binary file (asset) instead of XML ?
the document is just meta with a link to the actual asset, e.g.
<asset src="lenya.pdf">
<dc:author>...</dc:author>
...
</asset>
Please note that I am not saying it wouldn't make sense to consider
treating assets and documents in a more homogeneous manner - quite the
contrary, that's why I made a proposal for a new document model in the
Wiki. I actually appreciate thoughts in that direction (maybe you
would like to comment on that proposal?),
sure, which one? (It seems to me there are several proposals now)
but I just can not see the relationship between removing said
parameter and that discussion.
well, an assetdoc is not a branch
The "creator" interface in trunk has been changed for several
reasons; but most importantly because it no longer uses
java.io.File. In my understanding, it was a consensus in Lenya to
move away from java.io.File towards URIs and a repository.
that's fine, but has nothing to do with the decision to have BRANCH
and LEAF or only BRANCHES
Indeed; I meant to point out that the interface changes in any case.
Any custom implementation of a creator will need to be reconsidered.
So this means that if anybody has implemented a custom
implementation of a document creator, she would need to change it
anyway.
and that's one of the problems. The other problem is that Lenya
doesn't allow anymore to
create resources of type LEAF
I just don't understand what is lost by removing a parameter that the
core does nothing with. If you want to implement a custom mechanism
for creating documents which is different than what the core provides
out-of-the-box, you will need to write custom code (obviously). If you
want to store an additional parameter somewhere, say "nodeType" or
whatever, you will need to write that code. The old Lenya did not do
this for you.
What Andreas was suggesting in the thread "[1.4] Creator interface" is
to remove the creator (which has a magic Map of parameters). and write
the custom code you need in the usecase. So it simply is not the case
that Lenya would not allow something now that it did allow earlier.
What I definitely do agree upon, is that the discussion "exactly what
creation API do we want" is still open.
ok, so let's stop the discussion here and start a new thread at some
later point ;-)
Michi
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona Inc. - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
