W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Data Model

From: David Nuescheler <david@day.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:08:19 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=eX=rxd553LPEUsXr_OPV83pjaYpOkWdYcDVf=@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hi Julian,

thanks for the additional color.

Let me chime in on one aspect...

>> I think in JCR we went all out and in my mind went too far with
>> binaries. I think I would be happy with having a single optional
>> binary stream.
>> More importantly though since this is about fine-grained information
>> the typical case will be having "no" binary at all, but just a tree of
>> properties (and "nodes?").
> Would a zero length content work as well?

Well, personally, I would rather avoid that route.

I thought about this from various different aspects and while it of
course works from an implementation and usage standpoint I would argue
that it sets the wrong expectation and targets the wrong use cases.

In my mind the general case is that the "nodes" (or the lack of a
better term) do not have a "binary stream" associated, and in
exceptional cases they do. I see the fine-grained nature more similar
to rows of a table in relational database.
So in my mind it is important to identify the "binary content" as the
special case and make sure that the "binary content-less" concept is
treated as the general case, and not the other way around.

I realize that this is just a matter of setting the perception
correctly but that's precisely why would like to be careful ;)

Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 18:08:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC