jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Felix Meschberger (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (JCR-2640) Internal repository context
Date Mon, 31 May 2010 08:18:37 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2640?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12873578#action_12873578
] 

Felix Meschberger commented on JCR-2640:
----------------------------------------

> About public methods: having *every* method public is not a good idea of course

Sure, having each method public is just as bad has designing by the priniciple of preventing
public mehtods at all cost ;-)

Method qualifier must be driven by the architecture and this may result in public, protected,
private or package private methods.
 
My approach is to always use the most restrictive qualifier in the first place and only make
a method protected or public if really required.

> I believe that nobody is too adversely affected by the extra RepositoryContext 

It will certainly not make the code less complex; but we have reached a complexitiy level,
where this increment in complexity is almost neglectible ;-)

> Internal repository context
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-2640
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2640
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: jackrabbit-core
>            Reporter: Jukka Zitting
>            Assignee: Jukka Zitting
>         Attachments: repository-context-v1.patch, repository-context.png
>
>
> As discussed in JCR-890, the current approach of using protected or package-private getters
on key classes like RepositoryImpl to access other internal components and resources is a
bit troublesome. The attached patch (repository-context-v1.patch) introduces a RepositoryContext
object that can be used to get rid of such getters. This first version replaces the getNamespaceRegistry(),
getNodeTypeRegistry(), getVersionManager() and getRootNodeId() methods from RepositoryImpl.
> The idea behind this component context idea is to separate the JCR API implementation
classes from the task of keeping track of the internal implementation components. This way
none of the instances returned by JCR API methods would have methods through which Jackrabbit
internals can be directly accessed. See the attached UML diagram for how this layered access
would work.
> Assuming people think this is a good idea, I'd like to extend this mechanism to cover
also the rest of the internal Repository components like the data store and the security managers,
etc. I'm also thinking about using a similar context objects for tracking internal components
associated with workspaces (WorkspaceInfo, SharedItemStateManager, etc.) and sessions (LocalItemStateManager,
etc.).
> PS. Yes, we'd get much of the same functionality (and more) from OSGi or an IoC container.
For now I'm hoping to keep things simple without extra external dependencies.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message