On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 15:44, Justin Edelson <justinedel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex is correct that this isn't a very user-friendly name, but I'm not
> sure how much that matters *in this particular context*.
Agreed, in this context, numbers might be ok.
>> Line items have limited data and they have exactly the same structure, and
>> they have data that's of the same types.
>>
>> So my question is, am I modeling at the wrong level of abstraction? Should I
>> have one node that describes the whole order? If so how do I handle line
>> items in that entry?
> I think you're heading in the right direction - one node containing the
> first-level properties of the order and then an ordered list of child
> nodes for the line items. As I said, I suggest using an intermediate
> node between the order node and the line items.
There is one small important thing, that looks like it's already
implicitly present in the proposed structures, but still should be
highlighted: for the values, use JCR properties. The plain XML
structure of a single line item, with XML elements for each value
<qty>1</qty>
<desc>Widget</desc>
<price>1.99</price>
<lineTotal>1.99</price>
could naively be mapped to JCR nodes. But this would be very
inefficient, also for the Jackrabbit implementation. And since you
have multi-value properties in JCR, which in XML must be expressed as
elements (if comma-separated attribute values don't do it), you can
handle all cases.
Regards,
Alex
--
Alexander Klimetschek
alexander.klimetsc...@day.com
