jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jr3] Tree model
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:17:41 GMT
Hi,

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
> So far we used the MicroKernel API (JSON / JSOP API) on the low level.

I'm a bit worried at how complex the current MicroKernel interface
already is. For better separation of concerns it would be better if we
had more focused interfaces for individual tasks (like the proposed
Tree/Leaf pair for just accessing content).

Given the current scope of the MicroKernel interface, I'd see the
Tree/Leaf interfaces as being internal to the microkernel
implementation.

A different discussion is that I think having interfaces like the
proposed Tree/Leaf exposed also to higher level constructs like node
type handling would be quite useful. I don't see how something like
that could easily be achieved with the current MicroKernel design.

>>And since it's an interface, we could also implement features like
>>virtual content without the complexities of the current
>>VirtualItemStateProvider mechanism.
>
> I think that's possible even with the current API.

It's possible, but pretty complicated. Just consider all the stuff
you'd need to implement for a virtual jcr:system tree (like the one we
have in current Jackrabbit) with the current MicroKernel interface.
JSON parsing and formatting, path traversal, etc. Not to mention the
completely unrelated responsibilities like getHeadRevision() or
waitForCommit(). The proposed Tree/Leaf API avoids all that.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message