Correcting myself (hopefully, my memory is bad these days...), nt:unstructured is the one that can have arbitrary properties.
Why not then, making them all nt:unstructured, with one property to mark the "type" as file or folder as needed? Fabián Mandelbaum wrote: > > Tako, > I think the reason is that nt:file is not "customizable", while > nt:resource is. That is, nt:file has a fixed set of properties, you cannot > set your own. > > David, > > how does one "extend" a node? By just adding properties to it? Is that > the definition of "extends" that applies here? Or you extend nt:resource > programatically somehow? > > > Tako Schotanus wrote: >> >> Agreed on the nt:file/nt:resource bit. I'm not sure what your reasons >> are to add extra properties to the resource instead of the file >> though. Care to elaborate a bit more? :-) >> >> On 7/7/07, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Explanation: >>> --- >>> >>> If a content model exposes something that even remotely "smells" like >>> a file or a folder I try to use (or extend from) nt:file, nt:folder >>> and nt:resource. >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DM-Rule--6%3A-Files-are-Files-are-Files.-tf4040063.html#a13486709 Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
