Hi +1 for oak-segment-file or oak-segment-tar.
+0 for oak-segment-store. We *may* implement another segment-based persistence later, in which case having the persistence strategy in the name sounds like a good idea to me. Similarly, a later refactoring of the document store could lead to oak-document-mongo and oak-document-rdb (plus possibly oak-document-spi for shared stuff). Regards Julian On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I would keep the "oak-segment-*" name, so that it's clear what it is based > on. So: > > -1 oak-local-store > -1 oak-embedded-store > > +1 oak-segment-* > > Within the oak-segment-* options, I don't have a preference. > > Regards, > Thomas > > > On 25/04/16 16:46, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>Hi, >> >>There is a couple of names that came up in the discussion [1]: >> >>oak-local-store >>oak-segment-file >>oak-embedded-store >>oak-segment-store >>oak-segment-tar >>oak-segment-next >> >>Please vote which of the above six options you would like to see as the >>final name for oak-segment-next [2]: >> >>Put +1 next to those names that you favour, put -1 to veto names and >>remove the remaining names. Please justify any veto as otherwise it is >>non binding. >> >>The name with the most +1 votes and without any -1 vote will be chosen. >> >>The vote is open for the next 72 hours. >> >>Michael >> >> >>[1] http://markmail.org/thread/ktk7szjxtucpqd2o >>[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4245 >
