Hi, Please bear with me and let me know if I'm spamming the list, I told I'm new to CMSs. I gave the thing a second thought and I think that both approaches can play quite nicely. A part of the CMS can act directly at the content level (jcr portlets and jcr network interfaces) and another part work at a higher level of abstraction (GFT services) providing a subset of the features in order to ease the development and integrating nicely with OO designs.This way the GFT api would maintain its simplicity and leverage the jcr features and some extensions (e.g. an audit trail at the content level) that act at content level.
There's only one drawback that comes to my mind: since the content will be touched from many places all the constraints and security policies should be handled at the repository level in order to guarantee data integrity. That would probably lead to extend the repository constraint functionality through decoration or whatever strategy. WDYT? has it any sense?. Anyway, I'm working on the wysiwyg jcr portlet to show how a porlet "content" mode would look, I'll share it asap. br, edgar ----------------------- gft modules ----------------------- gft services -------------- ----------------------- jcr portlets gft persistence service ---------------------------------------- webdav |-> jcr | rdbms | fs | webdav cifs | nfs | ldap | etc.