> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Marcel Reutegger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I guess in the end I can live with either approach, but right now prefer > > 1). maybe the tie-breaker could be the question how we actually want to > > expose the version storage through the Oak API and how we implement it. > > I think in either case the version storage should be exposed simply as > the /jcr:system/jcr:versionStorage subtree.
see also the 'workspaces & version storage' thread. there I came to the conclusion it's better to separate (at least from a read-only perspective). I think it makes future implementation of multiple workspaces easier. > Anyway, how about we go with your option 1), but structure the code > such that we keep the CommitHook that triggers versioning operations > separate from a Validator that simply ensures the consistency of > changes to the version store and all versionable nodes (and would > therefore also act as an independent watchdog for potential bugs in > the hook)? That way potential future deployments that want more > freedom at the expense of more complicated versioning could achieve > that simply by disabling the auto-versioning CommitHook. sounds good to me. though, I initially didn't plan to implement a Validator at all ;) the CommitHook should ensure that the modifications it does are consistent. but yes, better safe than sorry... regards marcel
