I hope this provides you some clarity.
In reply to Bob's question (his text omitted for brevity):
Here are 2 scenarios involving files. One involves a single file, the other
an arbitrary number of files. The format of the text is:
node-type|node-name, with children underneath, indented:
nt:file|<arbitrary name>
nt:resource|jcr:content
(p) jcr:encoding=...
(p) jcr:mimeType=...
(p) jcr:data=0x...... (binary content)
(p) jcr:lastModified=...
nt:folder|<arbitrary name>
nt:file|<arbitrary name #1>
nt:resource|jcr:content
(p) jcr:encoding=...
(p) jcr:mimeType=...
(p) jcr:data=0x...... (binary content)
(p) jcr:lastModified=...
nt:file|<arbitrary name #2>
nt:resource|jcr:content
(p) jcr:encoding=...
(p) jcr:mimeType=...
(p) jcr:data=0x...... (binary content)
(p) jcr:lastModified=...
It seems to me, what you want to version is the nt:resource, NOT the
nt:file. I am not sure what function or responsibility the nt:file node
provides, but as you know, the actual content resides in the nt:resource.
It seems reasonable that you would want to version the ACTUAL item that is
varying, not the node that contains it. You have mentioned this in your
post. Mentioned elsewhere, I cannot find it right now, David mentions that
in his own use of the JCR, he rarely (if ever) extends nt:file, but
regularly extends nt:resource.
I would be inclined to have an implicit trust in his statement on this.
Maybe naive, maybe not. So, it would seem that an extension of nt:resource
would be preferable.
I have a couple additional questions to this issue of files/folders.
1) why the additional level of indirection with nt:file? If this is
analogous to a filesystem, the file IS the file. What is the benefit of
nt:file and nt:resource existing as separate entities?
2) What is involved in creating an extended nt:resource node type? Is there
a document discussing how to do this? Or would I be able to figure this out
by inspecting the source code?
3) Because I know I will be asked, if extending nt:resource is a frequent
occurence, why is there not a "stock" version that would allow some
additional capabilities, such as extra arbitrarily named/typed properties?
In the new world of development where Enterprises want to use more "off the
shelf" software and less custom written software, why would this not be a
part of the spec? Some folks, perhaps in our Enterprise, would view this as
a deficiency rather than a benefit, due to the possibility of breakage as
updates occur.
Thanks.
MJKelleher
Principal Software Developer
The Nielsen Company
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Questions-regarding-nt%3Afile-and-nt%3Afolders-tf4231254.html#a12040465
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
