Correcting myself (hopefully, my memory is bad these days...),
nt:unstructured is the one that can have arbitrary properties.
Why not then, making them all nt:unstructured, with one property to mark the
"type" as file or folder as needed?
Tako,
I think the reason is that nt:file is not "customizable", while
nt:resource is. That is, nt:file has a fixed set of properties, you cannot
set your own.
David,
how does one "extend" a node? By just adding properties to it? Is that
the definition of "extends" that applies here? Or you extend nt:resource
programatically somehow?
Tako Schotanus wrote:
Agreed on the nt:file/nt:resource bit. I'm not sure what your reasons
are to add extra properties to the resource instead of the file
though. Care to elaborate a bit more? :-)
On 7/7/07, David Nuescheler <davi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Explanation:
---
If a content model exposes something that even remotely "smells" like
a file or a folder I try to use (or extend from) nt:file, nt:folder
and nt:resource.
8 messages in org.apache.jackrabbit.usersRe: DM Rule #6: Files are Files are F...
