You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> on 2012/04/25 09:54:16 UTC
JCR<->MK property mapping
Just a thought:
Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we wouldn't
store the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
Best regards, Julian
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 25.4.12 9:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Just a thought:
>
> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we wouldn't
> store the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
I'd say yes as long as it is also robust enough to handle the case where
nt:unstructured is stored explicitly.
Michael
>
> Best regards, Julian
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2012-04-25 12:12, Michael Dürig wrote:
>
>
> On 25.4.12 12:01, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-04-25 11:48, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 25.04.2012 um 11:40 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian
>>>> Reschke<ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we
>>>>> wouldn't store
>>>>> the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, though the default type should be something like
>>>> "oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
>>>> "nt:unstructured".
>>>
>>> Do we need a namespace ? How about just "Unstructured" ?
>>
>> a) I wouldn't be surprised if there's code out there assuming that
>> namespace names are always prefixed.
>>
>> b) Having "nt:unstructured" and "Unstructured" be different is ...
>> surprising. So we probably want a different term...
>
> ((nt:)?void | (nt:)?any | (nt:)?unknown | (nt:)?node | (nt:)?top)?
I like "any".
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 25.4.12 12:01, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-04-25 11:48, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 25.04.2012 um 11:40 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian
>>> Reschke<ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we
>>>> wouldn't store
>>>> the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
>>>
>>> Yes, though the default type should be something like
>>> "oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
>>> "nt:unstructured".
>>
>> Do we need a namespace ? How about just "Unstructured" ?
>
> a) I wouldn't be surprised if there's code out there assuming that
> namespace names are always prefixed.
>
> b) Having "nt:unstructured" and "Unstructured" be different is ...
> surprising. So we probably want a different term...
((nt:)?void | (nt:)?any | (nt:)?unknown | (nt:)?node | (nt:)?top)?
Michael
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2012-04-25 11:48, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 25.04.2012 um 11:40 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian Reschke<ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we wouldn't store
>>> the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
>>
>> Yes, though the default type should be something like
>> "oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
>> "nt:unstructured".
>
> Do we need a namespace ? How about just "Unstructured" ?
a) I wouldn't be surprised if there's code out there assuming that
namespace names are always prefixed.
b) Having "nt:unstructured" and "Unstructured" be different is ...
surprising. So we probably want a different term...
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
Am 25.04.2012 um 11:40 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we wouldn't store
>> the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
>
> Yes, though the default type should be something like
> "oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
> "nt:unstructured".
Do we need a namespace ? How about just "Unstructured" ?
Regards
Felix
Re: JCR<->MK property mapping
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we wouldn't store
> the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
Yes, though the default type should be something like
"oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
"nt:unstructured".
BR,
Jukka Zitting