[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13660520#comment-13660520
]
Tommaso Teofili commented on JCR-3534:
--------------------------------------
> what i am saying is that we should not have a plain txt referenceKey/secret
> stored anywhere
What should we have in your opinion instead? Would a randomly generated key
stored in the data store address your concern?
As far as I can see it has to be stored somewhere (not in memory) if we want it
to be shared (no configuration) or has to be (manually) configured on both
repositories if we don't want to persist it.
> just changing the name doesn't make it better.
sure, in fact I didn't change that for making it better in terms of security,
just because it was a better name for it :-)
> if storing the key is always data-store specific (such as a special file in
> the FileDataStore, which is by far the most important data store, not sure if
> anyone is using the slow database data store), you only need a getSecret()
> method on the AbstractDataStore class
ok, but it'd be probably better to expose a default way of getting such a
secret / referenceKey with just an abstract method which knows how to store the
reference key value given its identifier. Also a subclass of AbstractDataStore
may choose then to override the reference key identifier or value.
> Efficient copying of binaries across repositories with the same data store
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> Assignee: Tommaso Teofili
> Attachments: JCR-3534.2.patch, JCR-3534.3.patch, JCR-3534.4.patch,
> JCR-3534.6.patch, JCR-3534.patch, 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
