hi michael, > This is one option we could imagine to go for. I simply wanted to ask for > proven solutions with the use case in mind. Reading '7.3.2.1 Roundtripping', I > can see what you mean. > We are a bit worried to introduce dependencies on a specific repository > implementation. Reading chapter 7.2 "Level 2 repositories must support the > import of content from either of the standard XML mappings, system view and > document view [...]" makes me think that for level 2 repositories > import/export > is supported. But only the system view garantuees completeness and allows for > roundtripping. Since the spec doesn't force level 2 repositories to supply a > system view (either system view or document view), we might run into > difficulties. the spec mandates the system view and the document view as your quote from the spec shows. i don't know why you think that the spec does not mandate the system view? it does by no means says "either or" it says "and" in your quote. the system view is also tested in the tck, so it is pretty safe to say that a compliant repository can deal with a system view.
> Am I missing something or is my argument just practically irrelevant? hmmm.... i recently stumbled over a few posts on the magnolia dev-list, where people make scary statements with regards to import and export being repository dependant... let's say posts on the magnolia-dev list are with respect to jackrabbit / jcr "generally unreliable" (to say it politely) and i would suggest (just like you did now) to check with the jackrabbit-dev list if you need an educated statement about a certain aspect of jcr or jackrabbit ;) regards, david
