Hi, On 1/23/07, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it a silly thing to use nt:unstructured as all node types, and then mix in the required characteristics? (I am look at it as an alternative to cnd configuration). what are the downsides?
It's certainly a valid option that gives you a lot of flexibility. The downside is that you lose the standard one-to-one mapping between a node and the "default semantics" of that node. This shouldn't be a problem if you've designed your application accordingly. There are already some generic tools that use the primary type of a node to decide how to handle it, for example the WebDAV server has special handling for nt:files. I can easily foresee tools that allow you to plugin custom functionality that gets activated by the primary type of a node. Using an "unstructured" content model would probably lose such future options, but this is probably just a minor issue. In general I'd advocate using descriptive primary types as they make it easy to bind functionality to a node, but I can certainly understand how the current limitations of node type administration in Jackrabbit make "unstructured" content models more attractive. BR, Jukka Zitting
