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: RootImpl to AbstractRoot
Date Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:05:35 GMT


On 25.7.13 15:27, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> I have the impression that the name ImmutableTree/Root doesn't match completely the concept.
>
> A more appropriate name would be IMHO something like ImmutableUnsecureTree/Root
>
> We might also have ImmutableTree/Root though but then will have some security layer as
the Mutable one.
> This change of name might allow us to be more specific on some internal API where we
currently pass a Tree but what we actually would need is ImmutableUnsecureTree

It seems to me we are mixing different aspects here: the one of 
mutability and the one of access rights. AFAICS it happens to be the 
case that for the permission evaluation code immutable trees are 
sufficient but we need them also to be non secured.

Lets go one step at a time. First refactor the commonalities of the 
respective Root implementations into a common base class and rename the 
sub classes to much those of Tree.

Second we might want to have another look on the separation of secured 
vs. non secured trees and how we could better handle this.

Michael

Mime
View raw message