jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "angela (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (OAK-197) oak-api ConflictHandler defines method using oak.spi.state.NodeState
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:57:33 GMT
angela created OAK-197:

             Summary: oak-api ConflictHandler defines method using oak.spi.state.NodeState
                 Key: OAK-197
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-197
             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: core
            Reporter: angela

similar issue than was reported in OAK-191:

IMO the current ConflictHandler interface defined in the oak-api mixes 
different levels of abstraction by defining methods that refer both 
to Tree and NodeState. in particular because the latter is defined
in the oak.spi.state package which IMO should not be exposed on the
oak-api level.

the methods i am referring to are:

    Resolution addExistingNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState ours, NodeState theirs);
    Resolution changeDeletedNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState ours);
    Resolution deleteChangedNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState theirs);
    Resolution deleteDeletedNode(Tree parent, String name);

wouldn't it be better to use Tree instead of NodeState?
if that's not feasible i would either argue that the inteface doesn't belong 
to the oak-api or that the distinction between Tree and NodeState is artificial
and we should try to get rid of it.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


View raw message