jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [j3] Repository MicroKernel API draft
Date Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:10:10 GMT
On 20.06.11 15:22, "Thomas Mueller" <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
>>This is actually the way I's prefer to go.
>Me too - otherwise, I wouldn't have implemented those classes :-)
>Val.toString() returns Json by the way.

If json provides the right amount of (standardized) unstructuredness I
guess it's useful (and can be "natively" remoted). What about using the
json library in-memory representations for the microkernel to avoid
serialization/parsing if not necessary?

>When implementing my jackrabbit-j3 prototype, I found that it makes sense
>to re-use the value implementation, but it might not make sense for the
>node implementation. And about property implementation: I think it's just
>not needed at all. There is no need for a property class, except on the
>JCR API level.

The microkernel should not validate properties or do any fancy stuff with
it, so a generic string -> value map is all there is, right?


Alexander Klimetschek
Developer // Adobe (Day) // Berlin - Basel

View raw message