On 9/21/06, Christophe Lombart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Compare to the existing Graffito codebase, this is completely another approach to build content portlets (100% dependent on the JCR API ).
As we discussed earlier, the only integration with the existing approach would be at the repository level. I understand it's not acceptable from a pure OO design, but IMHO it's a valid approach for a content oriented application where the main contract is the consensus on the semantics of the node types. IMHO applications working on top of JCR should be ready to let other apps to modify the underlying content bypassing the object model layer. That would allow breaking the data silo in favor of publishing the content via multiple interfaces. I'd like to make clear that I'm not in a crusade in favor of jcr. I'm interested in seeing the features I'm talking independently of implementation details. Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but my interest is seeing 1. CMS features for j2 portal site, 2. integration of portlet contents to the portal site hierarchy, 3. and a reusable portlet content mode; 4. a webdav interface would be cool but not strictly necessary for me. That's why I'd like to know if the graffito community agress these are goals in the scope of graffito? and in case it's in the scope I'd like to know how it should be implemented. I'm open to work with other approaches, see my other thread about the page manager impl. br, edgar
Christophe
