On 2012-05-15 14:20, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
1) Would it make sense to start tracking more closely which Query tests
are passing? Right now all of them are marked as failing in the pom...
(and yes, I can do that, but I wanted to wait until it makes sense)
I ran the TCK test to find out what areas are missing or not working
correctly. Most of those issues were relatively straightforward to solve
(a few minutes), and creating separate JIRA issues for each item doesn't
make sense in my view. Also, many issues were related to each other. There
are still some issues that will be quite easy to solve. However, over time
this will get harder, and fixing the remaining issues will take more and
more time (hours or days). As soon as that's the case I will create JIRA
issues.
Understood.
The reason why I'm asking is that if we leave things as they are right
now, we won't notice regressions, because all of the tests are marked as
known failures. Thus, once the majority of functionality is there, we
should make the exclusions more fine-grained.
Again; I'm volunteering to do that; I'd just like to know when it's a
good time to do so.
2) My understanding was that we want to use Query to resolve identifiers
for referenceable nodes. Will there be a special API for that?
One option is to use the 'public' oak-core API directly, that is to use
SQL-2 statements.
(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.api.QueryEngine.executeQuery). I'm not sure if
that's the best solution, but it would reduce the 'surface area' of the
indexing mechanism, that is, we wouldn't need to add another API.
I'm quite confident it wouldn't be a performance problem. If it turns out
it is, it would make sense to solve the problem in the query engine - that
way even regular (JCR API) queries would benefit.
...
We can try that, but we should make sure there's a single place in
oak-jcr then which constructs these queries.
Best regards, Julian
