angela created OAK-197:
--------------------------
Summary: oak-api ConflictHandler defines method using
oak.spi.state.NodeState
Key: OAK-197
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-197
Project: Jackrabbit Oak
Issue Type: Bug
Components: core
Reporter: angela
similar issue than was reported in OAK-191:
IMO the current ConflictHandler interface defined in the oak-api mixes
different levels of abstraction by defining methods that refer both
to Tree and NodeState. in particular because the latter is defined
in the oak.spi.state package which IMO should not be exposed on the
oak-api level.
the methods i am referring to are:
Resolution addExistingNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState ours,
NodeState theirs);
Resolution changeDeletedNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState ours);
Resolution deleteChangedNode(Tree parent, String name, NodeState theirs);
Resolution deleteDeletedNode(Tree parent, String name);
wouldn't it be better to use Tree instead of NodeState?
if that's not feasible i would either argue that the inteface doesn't belong
to the oak-api or that the distinction between Tree and NodeState is artificial
and we should try to get rid of it.
--
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
