Hi Chris! I just noticed this comment and I am not 100% I like the solution for the discriminator mixin which seems obtrusive. It is like requiring a class to implement a special interface just to make it work with graffito and this is not good. The user must have the freedom to define his nodetypes and create no dependencies upon graffito and for this small thing it is really easy to configure hust a field name to make it work.
br, ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. On 5/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: clombart Date: Sat May 13 08:07:23 2006 New Revision: 406117 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=406117&view=rev Log: Add several modifications : * jcrNodeType is not mandatory.If not present the default value is "nt:unstructured". * discriminator field descriptor was removed. Only the flag discriminator is defined on the class descriptor. If this flag is true, a mixin node type "graffito:discriminator" is added to the node. This type contains one property to store the java classname (graffito:classname). With this implementation, the discriminator field is not necessary. So, the persistence mechanism is still transparent for the jaba beans. * Interface support : like the inheritance support, there are 2 differents strategies : node type per concrete class or per complete hierarchy. The hierarchy strategy requires a discriminator node type. Added: incubator/graffito/trunk/jcr/jcr-mapping/src/test/org/apache/portals/graffito/jcr/testmodel/interfaces/
