On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:07, Mike Müller (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-1137?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763042
#action_12763042 ]
Mike Müller commented on SLING-1137:
--
On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:50, Alexander Klimetschek (JIRA) wrote:
I would refrain from building in an automatic mechanism that creates
hash-based paths because they are bad ;-)
Could you elaborate on why they are bad in the JCR ?
(not taking about in URLS exposed to users here, only the JCR)
Th
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 16:48, Ian Boston wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:50, Alexander Klimetschek (JIRA) wrote:
>> I would refrain from building in an automatic mechanism that creates
>> hash-based paths because they are bad ;-)
>
> Could you elaborate on why they are bad in the JCR ?
> (not taking
On 7 Oct 2009, at 16:38, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 16:48, Ian Boston wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009, at 14:50, Alexander Klimetschek (JIRA) wrote:
I would refrain from building in an automatic mechanism that creates
hash-based paths because they are bad ;-)
Could you elabor
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 18:10, Ian Boston wrote:
> so if the abstraction and isolation is perfect and the hashed and ugly jcr
> path never exposed to a developer or user above the layer of service or api,
> then using them in the JCR itself is unfortunate but acceptable ?
I'd say the "layer of ser
On 7 Oct 2009, at 18:48, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 18:10, Ian Boston wrote:
so if the abstraction and isolation is perfect and the hashed and
ugly jcr
path never exposed to a developer or user above the layer of
service or api,
then using them in the JCR itself i
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 20:34, Ian Boston wrote:
> I agree, I would like to adopt sensible naming, but we keep on hitting
> situations where even with the most reasonable domain prefix we end up with
>> 2K items in a folder and then the update rates go through the floor, and
> contention and un mer
Non-developer warning:
On 7 Oct 2009, at 22:47, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
[...]
But even if Jackrabbit scales with hundred thousands of child nodes
per node, you still have the problem of an unbalanced tree: it will be
hard or not to say impossible to browse that tree for a human - you'd
need
On 7 Oct 2009, at 22:47, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 20:34, Ian Boston wrote:
I agree, I would like to adopt sensible naming, but we keep on
hitting
situations where even with the most reasonable domain prefix we end
up with
2K items in a folder and then the update
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 00:24, John Norman wrote:
> Does it make any difference that different users might have a different
> logical tree for organising the same content? I have seen quite a few
> hierarchical information organisation models that make sense to one human
> being but are completely
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:11, Ian Boston wrote:
> 1. The URL space is part of the UI and "owned" by the User, UX Designer, UI
> developer.
> 2. Imposing a convention on that URL space for the affordances of the back
> end causes just the problem that you are concerned about. Now the UI
> developer
On 8 Oct 2009, at 09:24, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
IMHO the content structure is a critical part of the system (at least
on the technical side), so I would involve a developer with knowledge
and experience about the "underlying" repository and content modeling
whenever a new URL space is cre
> > IMHO the content structure is a critical part of the system
> (at least
> > on the technical side), so I would involve a developer with
> knowledge
> > and experience about the "underlying" repository and
> content modeling
> > whenever a new URL space is created by some application. Or
> teach
13 matches
Mail list logo
