jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: Semantics of MicroKernel.getNodes()
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:50:09 GMT
On 2012-03-15 09:44, Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Michael Dürig<mduerig@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14.3.12 14:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I'm looking at MicroKernel.getNodes(), and I believe the semantics might
>>> perform non-optimal unless we get the property filtering right.
>>>
>>> A typical use case always is browsing a repository using a tree view.
>>>
>>> A tree view usually needs, given a node N:
>>>
>>> - all or a subset of all properties of node N
>>>
>>> - the set of child node names, and for each of these child nodes, a
>>> predefined set of properties that will allow the caller to decorate the
>>> node properly -- such as whether it's a container, and maybe the type).
>>
>>
>> Couldn't we use the filter parameter for such cases. AFAIK the parameter is
>> currently in the API only and its semantics is not defined yet. So if we
>> come up with the right semantics for it, wouldn't that work?
>
> i added the filter parameter for specifying the properties to be
> included in the json response but the format/syntax is still TBD.
>
> IMO there should be an implicit default filter (e.g all user-defined properties
> +  the system-defined ':childNodeCount' property).
>
> the ':hash' property should only be included on demand, i.e. when it is
> specified in the filter.
>
> cheers
> stefan
> ...

That sounds familiar; WebDAV PROPFIND works in a similar way (the 
default is "allprop", and it excludes system properties that may be 
irrelevant, expensive to compute, or both. -> 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.9.1>

Best regards, Julian

Mime
View raw message