Hi,

I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the wrong
direction wrt. the modularization effort.

Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency optional, but
I'm not convinced you won't have another bundle pulling in the composite
dependency anyway.


best,
alex




On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:04 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > > > > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > > > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> > > > >
> > > > > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less bundle
> > > > > ).
> > > > > If we
> > > > > go with 2, we split the logic from the oak-store-composite
> > > > > bundle
> > > > > and
> > > > > add more stuff on top of oak-core.
> > > >
> > > > 1 means simpler deployment and more stuff in oak-core, but the
> > > > MountInfoProvider is required for composite and non-composite
> > > > stores.
> > > > Having it in (experimental) module oak-store-composite feels
> > > > strange.
> > >
> > > Why do you consider oak-store-composite experimental? It's not
> > > documented very well unfortunately, but it's as well-tested as any
> > > other component in Oak from my point of view.
> >
> > AFAIR Oak's documentation says it's "experimental". The composite ns
> > page says
> > it's work-in-progress – outdated documentation?
>
> That's a good point. I've updated the docs to remove the information
> about the compositens being work-in-progress, just the documentation is
> :-)
>
> Robert
>

Reply via email to