[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-191?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13421375#comment-13421375
]
angela commented on OAK-191:
----------------------------
reusing existing functionality is perfectly fine. what bothers me is that we
expose SPI interfaces
in the API since as from my understanding that's a different level and those
levels should probably
not be mixed.
i don't care too much how we address this. but the trivial solution to just
move NodeState and
NodeStateDiff to oak-api looks a bit awkward to me (specifically as we already
have Tree).
> ChangeExtractor uses interfaces from oak.spi.state
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-191
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-191
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: angela
>
> from my understanding the oak-api should not rely on interfaces/classes
> defined by the oak.spi package space.
> while looking at the different Tree implementations and the usage of
> NodeState (defined in the spi) i realized that the ChangeExtractor makes in
> fact use of the org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.spi.state.NodeStateDiff which in
> turn has a dependency to NodeState from the same package. That way the
> NodeState interface gets exposed with the oak-api which looks a rather
> awkward to me.
> i think this should be reconsidered. and maybe we also have to take
> a second look at the distinction between oak-api and oak-spi.
--
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
