hi all i recently had another look at the oak-core module and was thinking if it wouldn't be better if we would move the NodeStore implementations into separate modules.
to begin with i just tried 2 separate modules: - oak-ns-document: > everything below oak.plugins.document - oak-ns-segment: > everything below oak.plugins.segment > segment specific parts of oak.plugins.backup i found the following issues: - org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.cache is not part of the exported packages - oak.plugins.backup contains both public API and implementations without separation - the following test-classes have a hard dependency on one or more ns implementations: > KernelNodeStoreCacheTest > ClusterPermissionsTest > NodeStoreFixture to fix those we could need to be able to run the tests with the individual nodestore modules and move those tests that are just intended to work with a particular impl. such a move would not only prevent us from introducing unintended package dependencies but would also reduce the number of dependencies present with oak-core. wdyt? kind regards angela On 12/08/14 16:20, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On 12.8.14 4:08 , Angela Schreiber wrote: >> hi claus >> >>>> And yes, it's confusing. >>> .. so I'm not alone here :-) >> >> no... nobody gets it... in particular as one term is also the >> marketing term for the other... just makes the mess a complete mess. >> >> as far as i am concerned i don't know any good reason for keeping two >> APIs for the same thing. IMO we should move the microkernel API to >> to the sandbox... the oak code base evolved and it doesn't make sense >> to keep things just for nostalgia if they add so much confusion. > >+1 see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1327 > >Michael > >> >> kind regards >> angela >>
