Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of anchela@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.25 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F87FD85.9040708@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:18:45 +0200
From: Angela Schreiber <anchela@adobe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Subject: MK API: consistent usage of revision, revision id, revision number
 [...]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hi

just found in the mk API that the usage of revision isn't
completely consistent:

- 'revision number'
    -> revision id was probably more appropriate

- 'revision' when referring to a String
    -> i would suggest to use again 'revision id'

and consequently only use 'revision' when really referring
to the revision.

example: MicroKernel#getHeadRevision String
          MicroKernel#waitForCommit (fixed in rev. 1325699)

- there are cases where the API/javadoc refers to a revision
   but in fact it means some sort of revision-info that
   consists of revisionID + time stamp

example: MicroKernel#getRevisions, javadoc of #getJournal

what do you think? was this worth being addressed?

angela