[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13634968#comment-13634968
]
Tommaso Teofili edited comment on JCR-3534 at 4/18/13 8:01 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
> As mentioned earlier, I'd rather introduce an extension to the Binary
> interface and use ValueFactory.createValue(Binary) instead.
at a first glance this option seems to better address back compatibility as it
wouldn't change the ValueFactory#createValue(String, PropertyType.BINARY)
behavior but rely on explicitly use a different type of Binary, at the same
time that may require special handling in the VF impl (which is usually not
nice)
> I'm not sure about spec compliance, but createValue(Binary) could return null
> if the binary isn't available on the target system.
reading
http://www.day.com/maven/jsr170/javadocs/jcr-2.0/javax/jcr/ValueFactory.html#createValue(javax.jcr.Binary)
it seems returning null is not considered but I may be wrong.
was (Author: teofili):
bq. As mentioned earlier, I'd rather introduce an extension to the Binary
interface and use ValueFactory.createValue(Binary) instead.
at a first glance this option seems to better address back compatibility as it
wouldn't change the ValueFactory#createValue(String, PropertyType.BINARY)
behavior but rely on explicitly use a different type of Binary, at the same
time that may require special handling in the VF impl (which is usually not
nice)
bq. I'm not sure about spec compliance, but createValue(Binary) could return
null if the binary isn't available on the target system.
reading
http://www.day.com/maven/jsr170/javadocs/jcr-2.0/javax/jcr/ValueFactory.html#createValue(javax.jcr.Binary)
it seems returning null is not considered but I may be wrong.
> Add JackrabbitSession.getValueByContentId method
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-3534
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3534
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: jackrabbit-api, jackrabbit-core
> Affects Versions: 2.6
> Reporter: Felix Meschberger
> Attachments: JCR-3534.patch
>
>
> we have a couple of use cases, where we would like to leverage the global
> data store to prevent sending around and copying around large binary data
> unnecessarily: We have two separate Jackrabbit instances configured to use
> the same DataStore (for the sake of this discussion assume we have the
> problems of concurrent access and garbage collection under control). When
> sending content from one instance to the other instance we don't want to send
> potentially large binary data (e.g. video files) if not needed.
> The idea is for the sender to just send the content identity from
> JackrabbitValue.getContentIdentity(). The receiver would then check whether
> the such content already exists and would reuse if so:
> String ci = contentIdentity_from_sender;
> try {
> Value v = session.getValueByContentIdentity(ci);
> Property p = targetNode.setProperty(propName, v);
> } catch (ItemNotFoundException ie) {
> // unknown or invalid content Identity
> } catch (RepositoryException re) {
> // some other exception
> }
> Thus the proposed JackrabbitSession.getValueByContentIdentity(String) method
> would allow for round tripping the JackrabbitValue.getContentIdentity()
> preventing superfluous binary data copying and moving.
> See also the dev@ thread
> http://jackrabbit.markmail.org/thread/gedk5jsrp6offkhi
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
