On 11.4.12 10:54, Michael Dürig wrote:
On 11.4.12 8:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Michael Dürig<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10.4.12 17:46, Jukka Zitting wrote:
I can take care of this later tonight unless anyone beats me to it.
That'd be great. Thanks.
Done now in revision 1324601.
Thanks Jukka!
I didn't yet touch PathUtils. Where would it best fit?
Well... into a commons module ;-)
On a second thought, we need some pretty JCR specific stuff for handling
paths in oak-jcr. It might thus be better not to rely on PathUtils but
rather roll our own which can deal better with these.
I created OAK-61 for tracking this. In a first step I will copy stuff
from PathUtils such that we can get rid of the last bit of dependency on
oak-mk. We can then evolve this into whatever is needed for oak-jcr.
Michael
PS. I much prefer the earlier NodeStateBuilder name to
NodeStateEditor, since it emphasizes that we're building new
NodeStates instead of editing existing ones. According to the API
contract a NodeState should be immutable and thus not editable.
Feel free to rename. I was taking more the view of the user here who
doesn't
care about the underlying implementation and for whom the end result is
pretty much the same. But emphasising the immutable nature definitely
makes
sense.
I left it as-is for now. Let's review that part of the API more
generally and decide on naming once we have better consensus on how
this should work especially in terms of the proposed private branch
concept in the MK.
Right, that was my thinking when I put this together. See also the
related TODOs in the code.
Michael
BR,
Jukka Zitting
