hi jukka
and if we do that i don't really like the idea of having the
MK-API being part of the oak-core module as it requires
MK-implementations to have a dependency to oak-core including
the API... that looks odd to me.
same here. the mk api should IMO be a separate individually
versioned maven project.
Note that we can (and should) version the MK API package independently
on the OSGi package export level. There's no need for the API to
reside in a separate component for that.
obviously we are not obligated to do that. but i think it would
be very wise.
just having a look at the code that michi committed in the oak-jcr
project illustrates to me how important it is to have the separation
even on the component level:
SessionContext#getMicrokernel()
looks pretty awkward to me... that exactly the kind of thing
i was worrying about.
kind regards
angela
Also, since different MK implementations are not meant to be used
directly without going through oak-core (i.e. there is no deployment
scenario where oak-core is not included), I don't see a problem with
having an MK implementation depend on oak-core. Just like a custom
PersistenceManager implementation needs to depend on jackrabbit-core
in jr2.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
