[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-309?page=comments#action_12364102 ]
Jukka Zitting commented on JCR-309: ----------------------------------- > well, some of those groups are rather interfaces that provide a backend > service, and are not usefull for the 'client' Agreed, that's what I was trying to convey with "component API". You are right that SPI is a better term for those interfaces. Perhaps we should create o.a.j.api for the JCR API extensions and o.a.j.spi for the component interfaces. > Extract the public API interfaces from o.a.j.core to o.a.j.api > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JCR-309 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-309 > Project: Jackrabbit > Type: Task > Components: API > Reporter: Jukka Zitting > Fix For: 1.0 > > To better document and track the public JCR extensions and component API > provided by Jackrabbit and to allow more room for refactoring within the > Jackrabbit core, we shoud move (or create) the supported API interfaces to a > new org.apache.jackrabbit.api package. > At least the following interfaces should be moved along with any supporting > implementation-independent classes: > * PersistenceManager > * FileSystem > * AccessManager > * QueryHandler > * TextFilter > Possible dependencies to implementation-specific classes should preferably be > abstracted using extra interfaces. > Also the workspace and node type administration methods should be published > as Jackrabbit-specific extensions to the JCR API interfaces. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
