On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Julian Sedding <[email protected]> wrote: > Not exposing the secondary NodeStore in the service registry would be > backwards compatible. Introducing the "type" property potentially > breaks existing consumers, i.e. is not backwards compatible.
I had similar concern so proposed a new interface as part of OAK-4369. However later with further discussion realized that we might have similar requirement going forward i.e. presence of multiple NodeStore impl so might be better to make setup handle such case. So at this stage we have 2 options 1. Use a new interface to expose such "secondary" NodeStore 2. OR Use a new service property to distinguish between different roles Not sure which one to go. May be we go for merged i.e. have a new interface as in #1 but also mandate that it provides its "role/type" as a service property to allow client to select correct one Thoughts? Chetan Mehrotra
