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: Securing Workspace#copy
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:19:47 GMT
hi jukka

would we in this case still have the need for Root#copy?
wouldn't it be better then to just drop that and build
Workspace#copy in oak-jcr altogether?

kind regards
angela

On 05/02/14 19:02, "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Angela Schreiber <anchela@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>> - flag the copy-target like we do it for the move operations
>> - perform the low-level copy (as we do it today)
>> - create commit hooks that
>
>Sounds way too complex and error-prone to me. I didn't want to comment
>during the call as the brainstorming could have resulted in some new
>ideas here, but so far I don't think we have anything that would be as
>clean as implementing the copy using a simple content traversal on top
>of the access control layer. Even perfomance shouldn't really be an
>issue here, as with the MongoMK you in any case need to create new
>documents for the new nodes and with the SegmentMK the travesal is
>really fast -- and as in both cases the large binary values that would
>be most costly things to copy are in any case copied by reference.
>
>> maybe we also want to discuss on whether or not it would make sense to
>> define the copy operation on the oak api to be also a singular
>>'workspace'
>> operations as it is the case in JCR... this would prevent us from ending
>> up having nested and complex combinations of copy, move and other
>> modifications in the same commit.
>
>If we treat copy as suggested above, there should be no need for the
>extra complexity, as from the repository perspective the copy would
>look like an import.
>
>BR,
>
>Jukka Zitting


Mime
View raw message