Hi,

On 24 August 2017 at 10:20, Julian Sedding <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24 August 2017 at 08:18, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> URI uri = ((OakValueFactory) valueFactory).getSignedURI(binProp);
> >>
> >>
> > +1
> >
> > One point
> > Users in Sling dont know abou Oak, they know about JCR.
>
> I think this issue should be solved in two steps:
>
> 1. Figure out how to surface a signed URL from the DataStore to the
> level of the JCR (or Oak) API.
> 2. Provide OSGi glue inside Sling, possibly exposing the signed URL it
> via adaptTo().
>
> >
> > URI uri = ((OakValueFactory)
> > valueFactory).getSignedURI(jcrNode.getProperty("jcr:data"));
> >
> > No new APIs, let OakValueFactory work it out and return null if it cant
> do
> > it. It should also handle a null parameter.
> > (I assume OakValueFactory already exists)
> >
> > If you want to make it extensible
> >
> > <T> T convertTo(Object source, Class<T> target);
> >
> > used as
> >
> > URI uri = ((OakValueFactory)
> > valueFactory). convertTo(jcrNode.getProperty("jcr:data"), URI.class);
>
> There is an upcoming OSGi Spec for a Converter service (RFC 215 Object
> Conversion, also usable outside of OSGI)[0]. It has an implementation
> in Felix, but afaik no releases so far.
>
> A generic Converter would certainly help with decoupling. Basically
> the S3-DataStore could register an appropriate conversion, hiding all
> implementation details.
>

Sounds like a good fit.
+1

Best Regards
Ian


>
> Regards
> Julian
>
> [0] https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/05cd5cf03d4b6f8a512886eae472a6
> b6fde594b0/rfcs/rfc0215/rfc-0215-object-conversion.pdf
>
> >
> > The user doesnt know or need to know the URI is signed, it needs a URI
> that
> > can be resolved.
> > Oak wants it to be signed.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> A rough sketch of any alternative proposal would be helpful to decide
> >>> how to move forward
> >>>
> >>> Chetan Mehrotra
> >>>
> >>>
>

Reply via email to