[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7499) Dependencies on various 'plugins'
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16610247#comment-16610247 ] Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7499: --- I still think the TypePredicate class should have a life of its own outside of the plugins.nodetype impls, so I've created a dedicated issue for the refactoring OAK-7746. > Dependencies on various 'plugins' > - > > Key: OAK-7499 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: angela >Priority: Major > Attachments: OAK-7499-adjustsecuritycode.patch, > OAK-7499-extractplugins.patch > > > subtask of OAK-7498 to drop usage of plugin classes directly from security > code base: > - extract interfaces for managers and provider services > - replace usage of implementenations -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7499) Dependencies on various 'plugins'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16490687#comment-16490687
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7499:
---
my counter proposal is [0], based on your patch but I did my best to not
introduce another bundle as I found it has too many similarities with existing
{{oak-core-spi}}. unfortunately the downside is that the type predicate code
ended up in {{oak-store-spi}} due to dependency on NodeState & friends. (there
is also a dependency on OAK-7510).
in the end I have no strong preference, it's a new bundle vs a package that is
in a weirdish location.
[0]
https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/compare/trunk...stillalex:oak-7499-t0
> Dependencies on various 'plugins'
> -
>
> Key: OAK-7499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: angela
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: OAK-7499-adjustsecuritycode.patch,
> OAK-7499-extractplugins.patch
>
>
> subtask of OAK-7498 to drop usage of plugin classes directly from security
> code base:
> - extract interfaces for managers and provider services
> - replace usage of implementenations
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7499) Dependencies on various 'plugins'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16486800#comment-16486800
]
angela commented on OAK-7499:
-
[~stillalex],
- regarding _oak-core-spi_: that would have my preference as well. but
unfortunately that's not possible due as it would lead to cyclic dependencies
to _oak-store-spi_. i tried to refactor that out but ultimately gave up... if
you see I solution that I overlooked, I am all for it.
- regarding {{RepositoryException}}: no strong preference... probably a
leftover from extracting the interface.
- regarding multiple issues: i wanted to get a sense on whether it's possible
to can refactor all the plugins-usages and get a coherent way of doing it. i
decided to treat the indexing separate and was already struggling with local
merge conflicts once i wanted to put all pieces together... but I can try to
split it if you want me to.
> Dependencies on various 'plugins'
> -
>
> Key: OAK-7499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: angela
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: OAK-7499-adjustsecuritycode.patch,
> OAK-7499-extractplugins.patch
>
>
> subtask of OAK-7498 to drop usage of plugin classes directly from security
> code base:
> - extract interfaces for managers and provider services
> - replace usage of implementenations
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7499) Dependencies on various 'plugins'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16483654#comment-16483654
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7499:
---
I just started going through the patch. one thing that jumped at me is the
creation of a new bundle for the new interfaces, wouldn't placing them in
{{oak-core-spi}} be enough?
> Dependencies on various 'plugins'
> -
>
> Key: OAK-7499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: angela
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: OAK-7499-adjustsecuritycode.patch,
> OAK-7499-extractplugins.patch
>
>
> subtask of OAK-7498 to drop usage of plugin classes directly from security
> code base:
> - extract interfaces for managers and provider services
> - replace usage of implementenations
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7499) Dependencies on various 'plugins'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16482535#comment-16482535
]
Robert Munteanu commented on OAK-7499:
--
[~anchela] - changes LGTM. For the components that don't have an {{activate}}
method that needs to do some work you can drop the {{immediate=true}} flag as
it's not needed.
> Dependencies on various 'plugins'
> -
>
> Key: OAK-7499
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7499
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: angela
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: OAK-7499-adjustsecuritycode.patch,
> OAK-7499-extractplugins.patch
>
>
> subtask of OAK-7498 to drop usage of plugin classes directly from security
> code base:
> - extract interfaces for managers and provider services
> - replace usage of implementenations
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
