Hi,
I'm generally in favour of such a move. However, as currently there is
still a lot of fixes from the affected packaged being merged to the 1.0
branch we should be very careful not to unnecessarily complicate this
process.
Michael
On 12.8.14 4:54 , Angela Schreiber wrote:
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
