Node Type Definition

[Mark Thompson <mt...@praxsystech.com>]

I'm still getting my bearings with jackrabbit so please bear with me.

 

I'm confused on defining node types.  I see in the doc on the site that
there is a special notation for defining node types (CND).  I also see in
the project the file
'applications/test/repository/nodetypes/custom_nodetypes.xml' that is
obviously based on the XML notation and not the CND notation.  The site
makes reference to the fact that the XML notation is the 'Old Configuration
Notation'.  

 

A few questions:

- Is acceptable to use either?  

- Is there a schema/DTD for the XML notation?

- Other than being less verbose than the XML notation, what advantages does
the CND notation offer?  (I suspect the notation was the subject of much
debate before I stumbled onto jackrabbit.)

 

Thanks,

 

Mark Thompson

 

Re: Node Type Definition

[Stefan Guggisberg <st...@gmail.com>]

hi mark

On 1/11/06, Mark Thompson <mt...@praxsystech.com> wrote:
> I'm still getting my bearings with jackrabbit so please bear with me.
>
>
>
> I'm confused on defining node types.  I see in the doc on the site that
> there is a special notation for defining node types (CND).  I also see in
> the project the file
> 'applications/test/repository/nodetypes/custom_nodetypes.xml' that is
> obviously based on the XML notation and not the CND notation.  The site
> makes reference to the fact that the XML notation is the 'Old Configuration
> Notation'.
>
>
>
> A few questions:
>
> - Is acceptable to use either?

regarding custom_nodetypes.xml:
see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.jackrabbit.devel/2314

use the api or use CND.

cheers
stefan

>
> - Is there a schema/DTD for the XML notation?
>
> - Other than being less verbose than the XML notation, what advantages does
> the CND notation offer?  (I suspect the notation was the subject of much
> debate before I stumbled onto jackrabbit.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Mark Thompson
>
>
>
>
>