IMO the only characteristics that can uniquely identify an object is the path.
So did the 'identity' of the object change when it moved from /drafts node to
/final node? ; I feel it did. If we map the transaction to ORM what just
happened is a table to table move.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in the way Christophe is
defining the OCM structure and the way I have understood it. I do not see that
current implementation cares too much about the identity specification through
an uuid. It likes a custom identity definition supplied by the application.
That could be genesis of fields specified as id fields. I completely agree
with this approach. UUID: is a luxury provided by jackrabbit and OCM need not
leverage on it alone. If that is so do we need to provide the notion of a
Sequence Generator from OCM? : Through the annotation and through the mapping
file. This would be useful for the applications to define a domain object as
'one with an id'.
<sequence-descriptor name = "FooSeq" type="String"/>
<class-descriptor className="com.bioimagene.iii.dms.domain.Foo">
<field-descriptor fieldName="name" jcrName="name" jcrType="String"/>
<field-descriptor fieldName="id" id="true" sequence="FooSeq"/>
</class-descriptor>
This will help the current implementation philosophy that uses id values to
resolve the names of same name siblings. I do not know for sure but such a
feature might straighten a few other wrinkles that I feel I felt when using OCM.
Thanks
Boni
-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksei Lukin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 October 2008 22:39
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OCM:To Path or Not to Path
Hello, dear Christophe !
Back to old discussion... :)
Sunday 05 October 2008 11:11:02 Christophe Lombart написав:
> My conclusion is if you see the OCM pojo classes similar to the JPA
> entities, the path becomes insteresting because the UUID is not mandatory.
> Otherwise, we have to specify the path into the OCM API see [1] ... but the
> discussion is always open :-)
UUID is not mandatory but always available as an option. Path is not consistent
parameter, e.g. I just move object from "drafts" to "published" content folder
and path is changed
but UUID is still the same. So what is better? I prefer key that never changes
for the same object independend of object location.
So in my projects I make all OCM nodes mix:referenceable and use UUIDs
everywhere.
We need path only when we place object at some location. Rest of situations
covered by UUIDs.
Path is unque but not consistent key of node. If we compare it to primary key
in the world of relations, it does not allow reliable object retrival and can
not be used as primary
key. As I wrote before few month ago, UUID is only option for reliable analog
of primary key regardless it's optionality in JCR specification. I do not know
JCR implementations
that do not support UUIDs so it's not a problem to use UUID.
SY, Alex Lukin
RIPE NIC HDL: LEXA1-RIPE
