19 messages in org.apache.jackrabbit.devRe: Content Object Mapping - jcrom.org
FromSent OnAttachments
David NueschelerFeb 5, 2008 3:47 am 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 5, 2008 4:11 am 
Jukka ZittingFeb 5, 2008 4:16 am 
Christophe LombartFeb 5, 2008 4:43 am 
Alex LukinFeb 5, 2008 4:47 am 
David NueschelerFeb 5, 2008 4:53 am 
IvanLatyshFeb 5, 2008 6:40 am 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 5, 2008 9:20 am 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 5, 2008 9:23 am 
Alex LukinFeb 5, 2008 10:25 am 
Christophe LombartFeb 5, 2008 10:53 am 
Jukka ZittingFeb 5, 2008 11:37 am 
Padraic HannonFeb 5, 2008 11:59 am 
Alex LukinFeb 5, 2008 12:05 pm 
Christophe LombartFeb 5, 2008 12:49 pm 
Alex LukinFeb 5, 2008 1:01 pm 
Alexander KlimetschekFeb 6, 2008 10:54 am 
oggMay 16, 2008 4:06 am 
Jukka ZittingMay 16, 2008 5:09 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: Content Object Mapping - jcrom.orgActions...
From:Alexandru Popescu ☀ (the.@gmail.com)
Date:Feb 5, 2008 9:23:53 am
List:org.apache.jackrabbit.dev

Oops... it looks like I've left something unfinished...

On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Alexandru Popescu ☀ <the.@gmail.com> wrote:

(to Alex Lukin):

2) JPA is based on relational approach and does not work properly with tree-like
structures we use often with JCR

That's partly correct. Indeed the theory of relational storage and tree-based storage are radically different.

However, I do believe that part of the JPA annotations and moreover API can be applied to any Object to X mapping solutions. And as I said: it doesn't need to be 100% pure JPA ;-).

bests,

./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p.