On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]>wrote:
> Luciano and PhotArk communities, > > I am proposing to use https://reviews.apache.org for our code review > since most of the code proposal for GSOC will be large so its hard to > do code review from raw patch. > +1 > > - Henry > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Umashanthi Pavalanathan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi devs, > > > > I have completed the implementation of the Manager classes using JCR and > > wrote test classes to cover basic operations as well. > > I have attached the final patch to [0]. > > > > Your feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > [0] ManagerImpl_implementations_v6.patch > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOTARK-72 > > > > Thanks, > > ~Umashanthi > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Umashanthi Pavalanathan < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi devs, > >> > >> I have implemented the PersonManager and RelationshipManager interfaces > >> using JCR and submitted a patch [0]. I used JCR Node's STRING properties > to > >> implement the concept of relationship between two user profiles. I have > >> written two test classes to cover the basic functionalities of the > methods > >> and was able to run them with success. > >> > >> I would like to get your feedback on this implementation. > >> > >> [0] ManagerImpl_implementations_v4.patch > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOTARK-72 > >> > >> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOTARK-72>Thanks, > >> ~Umashanthi > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Umashanthi Pavalanathan < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Umashanthi Pavalanathan > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > Hi devs, > >>>> > I am in the process of adding persistence support to the social API > >>>> using > >>>> > JCR. > >>>> > For that first we have to decide on the node structure. I have come > up > >>>> with > >>>> > two options (please refer attached image). > >>>> > In option-1, for each username, we have > >>>> profile,activity,appdata,messages > >>>> > child nodes. > >>>> > In option-2, under nodes people,activity,appdata,messages, we have > >>>> child > >>>> > node for each user. > >>>> > Referring to the two options, which is more suitable in your > opinion? > >>>> > > >>>> > Thanks, > >>>> > ~Umashanthi > >>>> > >>>> I think if we have a good understanding of the data access pattern, it > >>>> can help us decide which structure to use. For example, if we would > >>>> mostly show list of activities by user, and all other data by user, > >>>> I'd go with option 1. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes; as I understood we would mostly access data by user and my +1 for > the > >>> option-1. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> ~Umashanthi > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Luciano Resende > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende > >>>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > >>>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > -- Avdhesh Yadav http://www.avdheshyadav.com http://twitter.com/yadavavdhesh
