[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7589?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16531250#comment-16531250
]
Marcel Reutegger commented on OAK-7589:
---------------------------------------
Question from Michael in OAK-7570:
bq. Wouldn't it make more since to move the implementation of
HttpBinaryProvider to the value factory?
I think that's an interesting idea. Matt and I discussed this offline as well a
while ago. I wasn't happy with putting a {{getHttpDownloadURL(Binary)}} on the
ValueFactory, but as mentioned by Michael in OAK-7570, {{Value}} or {{Binary}}
may be a good place:
bq. JCR uses the ValueFactory for creating values and Value and Binary for
reading values.
> [DirectBinaryAccess][DISCUSS] Client facing API
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-7589
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7589
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Technical task
> Reporter: Matt Ryan
> Assignee: Matt Ryan
> Priority: Major
>
> From a discussion w/ [~mreutegg]: Suggested that we move the API changes out
> of oak-jcr (i.e. org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.api.binary.HttpBinaryProvider
> and org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.api.binary.HttpBinaryDownload to a
> different package to avoid unnecessary API changes to oak-jcr.
> This issue should also be used to discuss how exactly the client facing API
> is designed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
