On 9/21/06, Edgar Poce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to make clear that I'm not in a crusade in favor of jcr. I'm interested in seeing the features I'm talking independently of implementation details. Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but my interest is seeing 1. CMS features for j2 portal site, 2. integration of portlet contents to the portal site hierarchy, 3. and a reusable portlet content mode; 4. a webdav interface would be cool but not strictly necessary for me.
Yes, we have the same targets. what do you mean exactly by "integration of portlet contents to the portal site hierarchy" ?
That's why I'd like to know if the graffito community agress these are goals in the scope of graffito? and in case it's in the scope I'd like to know how it should be implemented. I'm open to work with other approaches, see my other thread about the page manager impl.
In my point of view, JCR is a nice API for the persistence layer (but not on business logic/service layer and not on the interface layer ). I like an application which makes abstraction on the technology to used. I don't know how we can provide both solutions in the Graffito project for the same target. This project is not always clear for some people. So supporting both approach will add more complexities to understand our goals. Now, it should be nice to get feedback/comments from others. Furthermore, J2 has its own object model. Adding cms features into J2, is it not supporting the J2 object model in a content repo in order to have features like versionning, locking, search, ... ? Let's continue to discuss that on your thread abouth the page manager impl.
br, edgar > > Christophe >
-- Best regards, Christophe
