I'm new to Jackrabbit and have read with interest some of the archive posts and
JIRAs on the evolving support for changes to node type definitions when there
are active nodes using those definitions. These seem to assume as fundamental
that a node shall always conform to its node type.
>From a site development point of view where Jackrabbit might be the content
>repository, this causes some concern to me. Sites change, requirements change.
>To me the node type definition should be more of a guide to the intent for the
>structure of the node rather than enforce very strict validation. To me it's a
>bit like the question whether an XML editor with DTD/schema validation should
>ever allow an invalid document to be created, even temporarily. Most end up
>taking the approach that it's sometimes necessary to make a document invalid
>on the way to making it valid again, and this seems reasonable to me.
So my question is really whether Jackrabbit is ever likely to support a 'lax'
mode where node types can be changed even if this causes existing nodes to
become invalid, or whether it's part of the fundamental design that this should
not be possible, ever.
Apologies if this goes over old ground and thanks in advance for your interest.
Alfie.
