jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Tight coupling to XML configurations
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:57:27 GMT
Thoughts?

On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:16 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, in my view, repository.xml and workspace.xml should go away  
>> or at
>> least be less visible for a user. Or do you mean something else with
>> XML configuration?
>
> I don't see why we would want to make configuration files less  
> visible to the users but that's for a different thread.
>
> Currently, the way the JCR server is booted up is tightly  
> integrated w/ XML.  For example, the repository configuration  
> object holds an XML snippet that it uses as a template to generate  
> new workspaces.  This is what I mean by tight coupling.
>
> Ideally, we would have factories.  This gives me more control.
>
>>> interceptor stacks
>>
>> Could you provide an example?
>
> The current architecture of Jackrabbit seems to be tightly coupled  
> with extensions being implemented via inheritance and overriding  
> certain methods.  ATM, when I want to provide virtual properties to  
> a node, I have to inherit from an existing persistent manager (PM)  
> and override methods such as load(PropertyId).
>
> I was thinking that a JCR is really like a CMP container.  Having  
> worked on OpenEJB the use of interceptors immediately springs to  
> mind.  We can provide all sorts of cross cutting behavior, e.g.  
> security, remoting, tx, by just inserting new interceptors.
>
> Take my comments with a grain of salt; I don't fully grok the  
> architecture.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>


Mime
View raw message