jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:26:46 GMT


On 30.3.12 9:42, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> 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.

I think the original idea was more like variant 2. See whiteboard 
snapshot at the bottom of 
http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/OakComponentStructure. However name 
space mapping and most of node type stuff was though to go into oak-jcr.

AFAIR we didn't discuss workspaces then but from that picture it seems 
logical to me that workspace management should also go into oak-core.

Michael



>
> 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
> angela
>
> 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
>>

Mime
View raw message