In a way, Jackrabbit already supports a 'lax' mode; just use nt:unstructured for all your nodes. No structure will be mandated.
-Brian On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Alfie Kirkpatrick < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
