Hi, On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Alan Chaney <[email protected]> wrote: > ...I'm a complete newbie to using Jackrabbit. I'm designing a system in which > I > intend to manage a very large number of multimedia assets using JR > workspaces as libraries. The library would have different node types > depending upon the type of asset, which can be of various types, from a few > lines of text to multi-megabyte binary files...
Not sure if you need node types for that, my first impression is that a property (a la mime-type or something) on the asset should be enough to differentiate them. Or maybe a mixin, which can help in searches, but different node types might be too constraining. > ...1. I could implement the domain objects for the workbench and use an ORM... > ...2. I could implement the "workbench" domain structure as jackrabbit > nodes... Option 2 sounds much better to me, the JCR API is clean and powerful enough that you usually don't need to map it to objects, see recent discussion about that at http://markmail.org/message/wmqggzrxwxearmyh > ...and have one workspace for each user.... Probably not, a tree structure sounds more appropriate, maybe something like /assets /library ...library assets go here, chronological tree structure? /users /b /bob ...bob's assets, chronological tree structure? /bill /f /frank /felix etc.. In my opinion, thinking in terms of "how would I do that in a filesystem" is often a good starting point with JCR, and you can then add extra properties and nodes where needed for richer metadata than what you'd get in a filesystem. -Bertrand This may be 1000s of users > (eventually). What are the practical limits on the number of jackrabbit > workspaces - is it possible to have 100s or 1000s? The individual users > workspaces would have references to some of the library items but the > library would not have any references to the users items. > > Regards > > Alan Chaney >
