hi lukas what you looked as is just initial draft.... nothing that you can use with your jackalope setup... it's still not ready and far away from being a 'native' implementation of the spi server side part that would allow you to remote the jcr calls without having yet another jcr implementation on the server side.
this latter setup should be feasible with oak instead of jackrabbit by replacing the jackrabbit-core repository factory by one that contains oak-jcr inside. in other words: you would need to change jcr-server setup such that it uses the corresponding factory and configuring the repository-access-servlet accordingly. i don't recall the very details by heart but you may want to look at the corresponding code in jackrabbit that ties the repository to the jcr-server. if you want to contribute your solution to oak that would for sure be welcome. best regards angela On 10/07/14 15:03, "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 27 Jun 2014, at 12:32, Lukas Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> On 27 Jun 2014, at 11:37, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> oak-http didn't have much priority so far as Apache Sling was perceived >>> to be the "proper HTTP layer" so there is much room for future >>> improvements here. >>> >>>> On 27.6.14 10:29 , Lukas Smith wrote: >>>> 1) ability to fetch multiple nodes in one HTTP request: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1923 2) ability to specify >>>> a fetch depth: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1924 >>> >>> Thanks for reporting these. Patches would be most welcome ;-) >> >> I think it is possible that we can supply patches here. First I wanted >>to know if there is agreement that these features should be retained in >>Oak. Second I would be interested in discussing the API. From our review >>of the changes we noticed a move towards a more RESTful implementation. >>However the above 2 features go to the limits of what REST covers, >>meaning there is a lot more room for "bike shedding" than with other >>aspects of the HTTP API. >> >> For multiple node fetches we would propose to keep the API the same as >>what we implemented for Jackrabbit 2.x, ie. a POST on the root with a >>list of nodes. This is inspired by the CouchDB API. >> >> For fetch depth I would propose to use a query parameter as the >>previous approach of adding the fetch depth to the URI does not fit with >>the move towards a more RESTful API. I guess some people might however >>prefer to use a header for this. >> >> At any rate .. I guess I should move the discussion to the 2 above >>tickets but it would be good to get some feedback to ensure that our >>patches would match the general philosophy of the Oak HTTP API. > >Ok, Angela told my co-worker that apparently what we found is the new >HTTP API but the old HTTP API should also be around and it should be >possible to enable it somehow. If someone has hints for how to go about >doing this, we would very much appreciate it. > >regards, >Lukas Kahwe Smith >[email protected] > > >
