On Jan 22, 2008 8:57 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So as a first step I propose to change the implementation of the OCM to > allow the reading use case even if the path field is not mapped (to be > honest I haven't checked if this is not working right now, perhaps it > already works, so we don't have to change it).
ok for the reading stuff . This is not really complex to implemented in the current code but ... In my point of view, there are more "retrieve" use cases that will need to get the path after retrieving content. eg. after selecting one content in a list, do something with it. > > Second step would be to introduce an insert(String path, Object) method > to add an object at the given path. Like Paddy, I have not strong arguments but is there a big different with the current situation ? setting the path as argument or in the object attribute provide almost the same result :-) > > In general, and I just talked with Felix about this offline, it would be > interesting/nice to have an interface that does not rely on a path > (string) as the input for methods, but on a Node. In many use cases I > already have the Node where I want to query or insert objects. So this > could simplify the handling. Completly agree with Paddy. For me, the main OCM goal is to make an abstraction on the JCR technology :-). This goal is very important for many applications. If you need unstructured content, the JCR model is very powefull but if you are managing domain specific content, OCM becomes more interesting. In this case, the developers do not care about nodes. > Perhaps it would also be worth to split or minimize the current OCM > interface as things like versioning are not required for most use cases. Good idea. please make a jira issue. Christophe
