In fact, I'm extremely tempted that our next version will include only nt:unstructured node types and everything will be controlled programmatically.
Even export/import could be a pain, specially if the site cant be down for a long time. If I can create a background migration system I will be happy ;) Nicolas On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Tobias Bocanegra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it depends on the use case. but in general i agree that > nt:unstructured is sufficient for most apps. > the restriction that nodetypes can't be changed (reregistered) is a > problem of jackrabbit which will be fixed soon. also the lack of > altering the nodetypes of existing node is something that is addressed > in jcr283. > > stefano and david wrote some interesting articles about that: > > http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/DavidsModel > http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/93/<http://www.betaversion.org/%7Estefano/linotype/news/93/> > > -- > regards, toby > > > On 4/14/08, Ivan Latysh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Charles Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > Surely this is analagous to constraints and referential integrity > through > > key relationships in the RDBMS model? The same things could be said > about > > dispensing with anything other than application layer integrity and > > validation in that model. > > > > > You can alter RDBMS structure, when JR missing such functionality. > > (I haven't checked latest release, yet) > > > > So unless you are 200% sure of what you have to have, don't use > NodeTypes. > > > > So far we alter structure this way: > > backup (with JCR-Backup) -> change node types -> create new repo -> > update > > backed-up XML -> restore it. > > > > -- > > Ivan Latysh > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Nicolas Dufour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
