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: ContentSession#createBlob ?
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:29:22 GMT
hi michael

i create an enhancement to track that issue at

and i added a suggestion on how to improve that in
rev. 1401331 (with TODOs for those parts that IMO
need some extra care and clarification). tests passed
but i didn't check if there are many tests verifying
the expected behavior of the former code and did not
yet add tests for my changes...
it would be perfect, if you had time to look at it and
check if my proposal fits your needs/expectations as well.


On 10/19/12 11:43 AM, Michael Dürig wrote:
> On 19.10.12 10:36, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>> hi michael
>> thanks for the info
>>> Note that createBlobd() is very much the same as the
>>> getCoreValueFactory() method, which it replaced.
>> yes, i am aware of this... the reason why i don't like
>> the method on contentsession has nothing to do with the
>> 'what-it-does' but rather the fact i IMO it wasn't
>> the responsibility of a contentsession to deal with binary
>> values when at the other hand we have all value handling
>> separated out to a ValueFactory(Impl).
> Yes, but this is oak-jcr, not oak-core. If we forfeit the capability for
> creating "immediately streamed" blobs on the oak-core level, we can
> remove that method from the API.
> Michael.
>> kind regards
>> angela
>>> Michael
>>> On 19.10.12 8:54, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>>>> hi all
>>>> recent the ContentSession interface got a new method
>>>>     Blob createBlob(InputStream inputStream) throws IOException;
>>>> this there is no TODO comment associated with it i assume
>>>> that is intended to stay... however, it feels a bit odd to
>>>> me having that method on the content session interface and
>>>> i don't see how and why a regular API consumer of the
>>>> ContentSession would need/use this.
>>>> currently the only usage of the method is in a private
>>>> method on ValueFactoryImpl, which for that very purpose
>>>> needs to have the content session passed to the constructor
>>>> but doesn't otherwise need access to the content session
>>>> at all...
>>>> imo that should be reviewed again.
>>>> kind regards
>>>> angela

View raw message