[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2640?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12871538#action_12871538
]
Thomas Mueller commented on JCR-2640:
-------------------------------------
> our lives easier down the road if we want to go for increased modularity.
Increased modularity comes with increased complexity. Unneeded complexity will
make our lives harder, not easier. I'm afraid we bloat the code unnecessarily.
> Internal repository context
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-2640
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2640
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jackrabbit-core
> Reporter: Jukka Zitting
> Assignee: Jukka Zitting
> Attachments: repository-context-v1.patch, repository-context.png
>
>
> As discussed in JCR-890, the current approach of using protected or
> package-private getters on key classes like RepositoryImpl to access other
> internal components and resources is a bit troublesome. The attached patch
> (repository-context-v1.patch) introduces a RepositoryContext object that can
> be used to get rid of such getters. This first version replaces the
> getNamespaceRegistry(), getNodeTypeRegistry(), getVersionManager() and
> getRootNodeId() methods from RepositoryImpl.
> The idea behind this component context idea is to separate the JCR API
> implementation classes from the task of keeping track of the internal
> implementation components. This way none of the instances returned by JCR API
> methods would have methods through which Jackrabbit internals can be directly
> accessed. See the attached UML diagram for how this layered access would work.
> Assuming people think this is a good idea, I'd like to extend this mechanism
> to cover also the rest of the internal Repository components like the data
> store and the security managers, etc. I'm also thinking about using a similar
> context objects for tracking internal components associated with workspaces
> (WorkspaceInfo, SharedItemStateManager, etc.) and sessions
> (LocalItemStateManager, etc.).
> PS. Yes, we'd get much of the same functionality (and more) from OSGi or an
> IoC container. For now I'm hoping to keep things simple without extra
> external dependencies.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
