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: Oak Training CrowdReview
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:37:04 GMT
Hi Ben

I just had a quick look at the document. Here some preliminary comments.

1. Comments wrt "Appendix	B :	Edge	Case	Differences	Oak	vs	JCR2"

What you write there focuses on changes of the default jr setup wrt
oak default. But the document you write is for Adobe customers which
use jackrabbit (and oak) with the Adobe specific default configuration.
Therefore some of the diff you mention are not relevant why other
relevant changes are missing altogether.

-> please recheck with latest version of the oak-doc section to retrieve
   changes that are in fact relevant. in case you are not sure feel free
to call 
me such that we can discuss what actually is likely to affect our

- Access Control
  principal-based ac mgt cannot be used with Adobe CQ as the upper layers
  rely too much on the resource based impl. therefore it's not relevant
  the principal-based approach is currently not available with Oak.

- Authentication
  null-login: CQ 6 will be shipped with the backwards compatible setup
  the GuestLoginModule. keeping that section for completeness is fine but
  in feel that there are other changes in the authentication setup that are
  very important to mention as well.

  e.g.: we had to rewrite our internal LDAPLoginModule which is now part of
  Oak. IMO this should covered by this document as LDAP integration is now
  one example of the 'external login module' approach that is present with
  and it's likely that this will cause confusion.

- User	Management
  what you list as difference wrt Jackrabbit 2.x is not relevant for Adobe
CQ as
  it always used to have users store per workspace. This was already
present with
  Jackrabbit core but not the default setup for backwards compatibility
  with previous versions of Jackrabbit.
  I would drop that section altogether and mention those changes that
indeed will
  have an impact on customers upgrading to CQ 6.

- Internals	of	Permission	Evaluation
  given the fact that the other sections are pretty high-level i would
drop that
  section altogether. IMO this is on a total different level of detail than
  the rest of the document. You may include such a description when
writing a
  training on how to write a custom permission evaluation.

2. Comments wrt MicroKernel vs NodeStore

IMHO the training is very confusing and inconsistent when talking about the
deepest level in the architecture. While lession 1 refers to the initial
intention on how to build Jackrabbit Oak (in particular Oak-core being
on top of a MicroKernel) you later also refer to the NodeStore.

Second you mix the different names we have for the different persistence
layers implementations (e.g. TarMK = SegmentMK = SegmentNodeStore). I
that is is very confusing as the marketing names don't correspond to the
used in the source or documentation present with Oak.

Nevertheless, I think this needs complete and thorough review and rewrite.
If I would read that training without having the historical background on
how the architecture of Jackrabbit Oak evolved (from MicroKernel to
I would not be able to understand it.

Kind regards

On 21/03/14 08:54, "Ben Zahler" <ben.zahler@inside-solutions.ch> wrote:

>Hi all,
>As mentioned before, I am writing a training for Oak users. Michael Marth
>has suggested to do a CrowdReview of the document: Since most of you know
>the technical details of Oak very well, it would be great if you could
>review the rechnical details in the training.
>I'd be very grateful if you could check the table of contents of file and
>review particularly lessons 1,3 and 4.
>The draft of the training is available at
>user: review
>password: oak4502
>Thanks in advance,
>Mit besten GrĂ¼ssen
>Ben Zahler
>Inside Solutions AG | Felsenstrasse 11 | 4450 Sissach | Schweiz
>Telefon: +41 61 551 00 40 | Direkt: +41 61 551 00 43

View raw message