On 3/17/10 11:03 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > I still have the feeling that mounting other workspaces into the > resource tree is the easier way. > With that we wouldn't need to change content loading, resource events > and maybe other things to come? > > Can we go a step back please and see what use cases we really have? > > Carsten
A repository has three workspaces: 1) default 2) user1 3) user2 There are corresponding nodes in all three workspaces at the these paths: /index /apps/myco/page/html.esp User1 should be able to modify both of these nodes in the user1 workspace and be able to see those changes without impacting anyone else. Once User1 is satisfied with their changes, node.update() is invoked on the node in the default workspace (either by user1 or an admin process). ---and/or--- A repository has three workspaces: 1) trunk 2) v1 3) v2 all nodes are corresponding nodes. Nodes are cloned into v1 from trunk -> v1, then modified, then cloned into v2 from trunk. ----- As I understand it, with the "mounting into the tree" mechanism you're describing, the latter case would result in a tree like this: /trunk/index /v1/index /v2/index and then using /etc/map, requests for www.site.com would be prefixed with /trunk, v1.www.site.com would be prefixed with /v1, etc. This doesn't seem naturalistic to me. But I can't quite put my finger on why. Justin
