jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:42:13 GMT
hi felix

IMO your comment wasn't noise at all. while we did reach
some consensus that we want to have a separate oak-api
we still have some disagreement on what the oak-api should
actually be abstraction wise and ultimately look like.

my interpretation of the current discussion is as follows:

variant 1:
oak-api is basically the same as mk-api but just adds some
validation-magic. the tree exposed by oak-api upon creation
of a JCR session contains the complete JCR repository.
-> oak-core and oak-mk should in this scenario be located
    in the same module as the basically expose the same
    level of abstraction.

variant 2:
oak-api is a separate API and abstraction layer on top of
the mk-API. mk-API just being the storage that doesn't have
any knowlege of workspaces, items, node types. the oak-API
in this variant however, was aware of the different types.
the validation in oak-api implementation could rely on it's
knowledge of workspaces, repository-unique data (versions,
node types, namespace) and different types of (jcr) items.
-> oak-core and oak-mk are completely different components
    and therefore should be separate modules.

we are still this discussing this... but your confusion on
the current layout, i my opinion originates from this
not yet being decided.

that's my view on how the current layout actually reflects
the level of discussion and disagreement. we will have that
sorted out over the next couple of weeks.

kind regards

On 3/29/12 5:39 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
> Ok, thanks and sorry for the noise, then.
> Regards
> Felix
> Am 29.03.2012 um 11:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> Hi,
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix Meschberger<fmeschbe@adobe.com>  wrote:
>>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>> BR,
>> Jukka Zitting

View raw message