[Hippo-cms7-user] Relaxing CND's

Jeroen Reijn j.reijn at onehippo.com
Tue May 18 10:30:27 CEST 2010


On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Ard Schrijvers
<a.schrijvers at onehippo.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Jeroen Hoffman <j.hoffman at onehippo.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > You're right, I did have some thoughts on this.
> > I think being less strict (or not strict at all) would make the
> development
> > of CMS/site implementations much easier and faster. Certainly if for an
> > upgrade you wouldn't have to be bothered with namespace bumps, it would
> make
> > life better.
> >
> > So, the CMS could contain a metadata model for documents, fixed in a CND
> in
> > a hippo namespace. Using the "Editor", you create metadata instances,
> based
> > on which document instances are made.
> >
> > The metadata instances could be in there own namespace, but maybe we can
> > even go a step further and not create project specific namespaces at all!
> As
>
> This is possible, but I can imagine some developer still want to have
> his notion of news article versus for example an agenda article: The
> HST can then contain beans mapped to different nodetypes.
>
>
I do like the concept of namespace, since it helps you create a clean and
separate model. I would like to keep them if possible, but that's my
personal opinion.


> Also for the sake of upgrading the repositories in the future, for
> example from 2.12 to 2.15, I think it is easier if custom projects
> have their data contained within their own nodetypes (which will
> become flexible nodetypes containing any string/boolean/hippostd:html
> etc )
>
> I think making it as general as you now suggest introduces other
> complexities again, but ofcourse,  from the top of my head, I cannot
> oversee all details
>
> Regards Ard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onehippo.org/pipermail/hippo-cms7-user/attachments/20100518/0afb2263/attachment.htm>


More information about the Hippo-cms7-user mailing list