Hi, >It would basically be at a similar level as the PersistenceManager in >current Jackrabbit. Instead of returning concrete ItemState objects >(or JsonObject/NodeData), the storage layer would make persisted >content available through the proposed Tree and Leaf interfaces.
So far we used the MicroKernel API (JSON / JSOP API) on the low level. I agree the conversion between String and JSON / JSOP is problematic. To avoid it, there is org.apache.jackrabbit.mk.json.JsopStream, and a wrapper for the MicroKernel API: org.apache.jackrabbit.mk.wrapper.Wrapper and WrapperBase. I prepared a few presentations, I can upload them to the Jackrabbit Wiki once I cleaned them up. >And since it's an interface, we could also implement features like >virtual content without the complexities of the current >VirtualItemStateProvider mechanism. I think that's possible even with the current API. One reason to use the MicroKernel API is so we can implement a native version of the MicroKernel. See also http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Goals%20and%20non%20goals%20for%20Jackrab bit%203 - TBD - Microkernel portable to C: Regards, Thomas
