Hi, On 1/9/06, Tobias Bocanegra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Split the main core package into subpackages > that certainly makes sense, but by what semantics?
Good question, I didn't really focus on that very much. It seems that at least the hierarchy and namespace stuff could quite easily be moved to a separate package (or two) as a somewhat coherent set of classes. > - Move the nodetype.virtual package to a higher level > we could put those into the oaj.core.virtual package. btw: there are > plans to remove the virtual states completely and add a more > sophisticated approach. OK, then I think we could leave it as is for now. > - Move the state subpackages to a separate package > as far as i can tell, most of the state subpackages are implementation > of persistencemanagers. so i suggest to create a > oaj.core.persistencemgr package. Sounds good. The persistence manager concept is a pretty visible one, so moving the PersistenceManager interface and the implementation packages to a dedicated package could clarify things. Currently there are troublesome dependencies from PersistenceManager to the Id classes in o.a.j.core and from the SharedItemStateManager to PersistenceManager. Moving the Id classes to o.a.j.core.state and the item state managers to a new package would clean these up quite nicely, making this part of the dependency structure linear: statemgr -> persistencemgr -> state. > - Make a separate package for the item state managers > that would be: oaj.core.statemgr ? Sounds good. PS. I was contacted by Neeraj Sangal from Lattix and he's also taking a look at Jackrabbit architecture. I'll report back when I get more feedback from him. BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
