[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8840?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18052785#comment-18052785
]
Julian Reschke commented on OAK-8840:
-------------------------------------
[~mreutegg]:
bq. If possible, I'd also keep packages org.apache.jackrabbit.core.fs.* in
Jackrabbit. Classes in there are used by Oak only when it wants to start a
Jackrabbit repository, e.g. for an upgrade. I don't see any usage from actual
Oak production code.
Sure, in that case we need Jackrabbit anyway.
FWIW, that's a goo reason to move the "stolen" packages to a new package name.
> move jackrabbit-data into Oak
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-8840
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8840
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: blob
> Reporter: Julian Reschke
> Priority: Major
>
> jackrabbit-data is one of the few remaining dependencies on Jackrabbit. It
> would be good to move this into the Oak project, so it can evolve at Oak's
> speed.
> [~amitj], [~mreutegg], [~mattvryan] - what do you think?
> In particular, are there parts in jackrabbit-data which should stay over
> there? For instance, I assumed that DB-backed data stores aren't used in Oak,
> but then found out about {{DbDataStoreService}}. Maybe a cleanup is needed
> first?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
