jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mueller <muel...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [jr3] Tree model
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:40:03 GMT
Hi,

>It would basically be at a similar level as the PersistenceManager in
>current Jackrabbit. Instead of returning concrete ItemState objects
>(or JsonObject/NodeData), the storage layer would make persisted
>content available through the proposed Tree and Leaf interfaces.

So far we used the MicroKernel API (JSON / JSOP API) on the low level.

I agree the conversion between String and JSON / JSOP is problematic. To
avoid it, there is org.apache.jackrabbit.mk.json.JsopStream, and a wrapper
for the MicroKernel API: org.apache.jackrabbit.mk.wrapper.Wrapper and
WrapperBase. I prepared a few presentations, I can upload them to the
Jackrabbit Wiki once I cleaned them up.

>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.

One reason to use the MicroKernel API is so we can implement a native
version of the MicroKernel. See also
http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Goals%20and%20non%20goals%20for%20Jackrab
bit%203 - TBD - Microkernel portable to C:

Regards,
Thomas


Mime
View raw message