On 2012-04-20 17:30, Michael Dürig wrote:
>>> However, if oak-jcr has access to above table (either through an API or
>>> through content) I think we are fine. In that case oak-jcr can:
>>>
>>> - implement registry wide namespace mapping
>>> - implement session local namespace mapping
>>> - register new namespace mappings
>>> - handle items with as yet unknown namespaces
>>> - cope with expanded forms and qualified forms
>>> ...
>>
>> It appears the path of least resistance for now would be to
>>
>> a) put all the mapping logic into oak-jcr, which includes
>>
>> b) just assuming a certain place in the content tree for the mappings.
>>
>> Once we have this working we can still decide what needs to be pushed
>> down.
>>
>> Makes sense?
>
> Yes. Only that I'm not sure whether oak-jcr is the right place. I think
> there is no reason to make the mk prefixes visible outside oak-core.
>
> Michael
> ...
So move it all down into oak-core? That'll require that oak core handles
session-scoped namespace mapping changes...
Best regards, Julian
|