On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 15:57, Charles Brooking <[email protected]> wrote: > That was just my use case, but it's interesting to hear of other people > interested in node types.
In my experience you try to avoid node type changes after a product has gone "live" and lots of content using those node types is present. Hence you only change node types during development, where starting with fresh content is usually no issue. And you only make node types for those things where you are sure they are more or less fixed. For other things you keep going with nt:unstructured. The same way that mandatory properties change in your case, you will have the opposite, ie. that things that were mandatory become unnecessary, so generally a more relaxed approach is good for the long-term. That adds some more complexity to the application logic accessing the content (ie. it no longer expects total integrity hold by the underlying storage), but this also makes it more resilient. See also this paper for some more discussion around data integrity in the storage or application layer: http://dev.day.com/content/ddc/blog/2009/01/jcrrdbmsreport.html Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek [email protected]
