[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16545940#comment-16545940
]
Alexander Klimetschek commented on OAK-7570:
--------------------------------------------
The FDS or any other BS could still decide to outsource this feature and ask
for a special annotated (separate) HttpBlobProvider via the whiteboard, for
example. A decision the BS would make, not oak-jcr.
How does the CompositeNS handle it?
I do have the feeling that we‘ll probably only have simple cases (1 BS and 1
HttpBinaryProvider), so it doesn‘t really matter. It could also be changed
later, if necessary. As mentioned, if you see the whiteboard approach to be
better for maintaining Oak‘s inner architecture, I am ok with it.
> [DirectBinaryAccess][DISCUSS] How to access HttpBlobProvider from oak-jcr
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-7570
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7570
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Technical task
> Components: jcr
> Reporter: Matt Ryan
> Assignee: Matt Ryan
> Priority: Major
>
> Open discussion related to OAK-7569:
> The [original pull request|https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/88]
> proposes changes to oak-api, oak-segment-tar, oak-store-document, oak-core,
> and oak-jcr as well as oak-blob-plugins, oak-blob-cloud, and oak-blob-azure.
> Would it be possible / better to keep the changes local to the oak-blob-*
> bundles and avoid making changes throughout the stack?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
