[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13663848#comment-13663848
]
Thomas Mueller edited comment on OAK-834 at 5/22/13 6:58 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
OK I see, Node.update(String srcWorkspace). But this is a workspace operation.
I would actually try to avoid workspaces, because it adds complexity and
doesn't solve the problem as it still requires having all the data in one (big)
repository.
I think if it would have been an _option_ to kept all data in one repository,
then we wouldn't end up with JCR-3534 / OAK-834. But it seems it _isn't_ an
option to keep all data in one repository... Just my view.
was (Author: tmueller):
OK I see, Node.update(String srcWorkspace). But this is a workspace
operation.
I would actually try to avoid workspaces, because it adds complexity and
doesn't solve the problem as it still requires having all the data in one (big)
repository.
I think if it would have been an _option_ to kept all data in one repository,
then we wouldn't end up with JCR-3534 / OAK-834. But it seems it _isn't_ an
option to keep all data in repository... Just my view.
> Efficient copying of binaries across repositories with the same MK
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-834
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-834
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: mk
> Reporter: Tommaso Teofili
>
> As a follow up on JCR-3534 discussions and implementation, we should also
> discuss how to handle a similar scenario in Oak.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
