Wednesday 12 March 2008 10:52:58 Christophe Lombart написав:
> If I understand you, your proposal is something like this :
> 1. If the class is mapped to the unstructured node type or a node type
> that gives you the possibility to add extra properties, create a new
> property "ocm_classname".
> 2
If I understand you, your proposal is something like this :
1. If the class is mapped to the unstructured node type or a node type
that gives you the possibility to add extra properties, create a new
property "ocm_classname".
2. If it is not possible to add this property due to strong
constrains
Wednesday 12 March 2008 00:34:27 Christophe Lombart написав:
> Just one comment :
>
> The OCM has to be completely independent of Jackrabbit core. By this
> way, it can be used with other JCR implementation. As you can see,
> Jackrabbit core is only used for the unit tests.
> That's why the code is
Just one comment :
The OCM has to be completely independent of Jackrabbit core. By this
way, it can be used with other JCR implementation. As you can see,
Jackrabbit core is only used for the unit tests.
That's why the code is so ugly ... until there is a standard way to
add new node types.
br,
C
Hi Alex,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Alex Lukin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As allways, should I create Jira issue with this?
Please, yes. I'm very busy with other activities and it will be a
great help and ...
if possible with a patch :-) That's the fast way to improve the code.
Thank
Hi, All, Hi, Christophe!
I just took a look at new OCM docs at
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/5-with-jackrabbit-ocm.html
I must say taht ugly init code for annotation based OCM may be and must be
hidden.
In my application I created needed xml file and placed it in same package
where OCM init
