Hello. > > Otherwise I'm really excited about Jackrabbit and JSR-170. I also new to JCR but I'm already not too excited about it.
> coming from an rdbms background, I would have thought most > users would > want to be able to plug Jackrabbit into an existing schema, > at least for > type 1 repositories. Also for type 2 repositories, as someone else > mentioned in another msg, proprietary flat files might scare a lot of > clients because they can't see where their data is from a traditional > perspective. I think Jackrabbit is too young for such issues. ORM doesn't work at all in a version that a have checked out two weeks ago. It is interesting to have a look at db schemas in orm contribution. There we can see a rather common approch of mapping xml-structured data to strict static set of tables. > I rather like the idea of having the database set up in a > similar way to > how the JSR-170 pec suggests (with one table per property > type) for type > 2 repositories. It's more "normal" for systems people and is also > available to systems outside JSR-170 (non-Java - MS ADO for example). So general implementation should do DDL for definition of new nodetypes and mixins. I think it is rather difficult. But interesting. All the best, Dmitri.
