[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-32?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13234213#comment-13234213
]
Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-32:
-----------------------------------
Yes, we can drop it once we have a replacement for this feature (one that
doesn't require to use an OSGi framework, so we can use it for testing). The
replacement could be quite simple, for example like the TransientRepository.
> Drop MicroKernel.dispose()
> --------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-32
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-32
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jukka Zitting
>
> Just like a client of the MicroKernel interface doesn't know how a MK
> instance is created, there should not be a need for a client to be able to
> dispose an instance. For example the lifecycle of a MK instance running as an
> OSGi service (or any other component framework) is managed by the framework,
> not by clients. Thus I suggest that the MicroKernel.dispose() method is
> removed.
> The only piece of code that's notably affected by this change is the
> MicroKernelFactory class still in oak-core and any client code that uses it
> to construct new MicroKernel instances. I think we should replace the MKF
> class with a more generic solution as outlined in OAK-17.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
