Re: Findbug issues in the oak-code base

Hi Alfu Great to hear from you again in the Jackrabbit world! I am definitely looking forward to your contribution and active participation. Sorting out Findbug issues is for sure a valuable way to become familiar with the code base as it forces you to dig into the details and read the code.

Re: Splitdn in Oak LDAP ?

Hi Kunwar May I suggest that you create a JIRA ticket for Oak at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK indicating what behaviour you would have expected? We can then decide on whether we want to treat this as a bug/regression or whether we'd rather decided to introduce another 'splitdn'

Re: Failing SegmentToJdbcTest.validateMigration

uot; <reka...@adobe.com> wrote: >Hello Angela, > >> On 07 Apr 2016, at 13:37, Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> I will take the liberty to mark the test with an @Ignore tag when >> committing my changes. What's your preferred way to investigate

Re: Failing SegmentToJdbcTest.validateMigration

to investigate this? Shall I clone the OAK-4119? Or do you want to take a closer look once I am done such that you can actually experience the failure? Kind regards Angela On 16/03/16 14:26, "Angela Schreiber" <anch...@adobe.com> wrote: >Hi Tomek > >Thanks a lot for the confirmati

Re: Problems with OAK restrictions

hi gianluca the glob pattern doesn't distinguish between nodes and properties and just verifies if the path of a given item matches the specified pattern. so, having the pattern value set to empty string limits the effect of the ace to that very node. the properties of that node are not

Re: Failing SegmentToJdbcTest.validateMigration

Angela On 16/03/16 14:00, "Tomek Rekawek" <reka...@adobe.com> wrote: >Hello Angela, > >> On 16 Mar 2016, at 12:39, Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> stepping into the AbstractOak2OakTest and finally >> RepositorySidegrade.

Failing SegmentToJdbcTest.validateMigration

hi oak devs i keep getting test failure with SegmentToJdbcTest.validateMigration every now and then but can't reliably reproduce it when debugging the test (as thomas can confirm ;-)). stepping into the AbstractOak2OakTest and finally RepositorySidegrade.copyState i actually see that the target

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #7081: Errored

is CI" <ju...@apache.org> wrote: >Build Update for apache/jackrabbit-oak >- > >Build: #7081 >Status: Errored > >Duration: 2564 seconds >Commit: e261b416fdf34635faaf2e3109641716bacc2751 (trunk) >Author: Angela Schreiber >

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #7043: Errored

ec307c629e01980181745a67fe8b69813 (trunk) >Author: Angela Schreiber >Message: OAK-3759 : UserManager.onCreate is not omitted for system users >in case of XML import > >git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk@1718873 >13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 > &

Re: [jira] [Updated] (OAK-3632) Incorrect Value Conversion upon Node.setProperty and Node.setValue

hi marcel thanks for fixing the version. wouldn't it make sense to remove the a given fix-version from the selection as soon as we _start_ the release process? that versions is anyway taken and won't be re-used even if the release vote doesn't pass. removing it at the start would prevent wrong

Re: New to Oak, help with webdav

s angela On 17/11/15 09:40, "David Marginian" <da...@davidmarginian.com> wrote: >Hi Angela, >Jcr remoting should be fine as I believe that is what I am using now >with the older version of JackRabbit. > >On 11/17/2015 12:45 AM, Angela Schreiber wrote: >&

Re: New to Oak, help with webdav

hi david are you looking for real webdav support or for the jcr remoting which is partially done with webdav request methods? kind regards angela On 17/11/15 01:46, "David Marginian" wrote: >I am new to both JackRabbit and Oak and trying to upgrade an existing

NPE in org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.query.QueryFulltextTest

hi davide thanks for fixing the baseline issues (OAK-3628). however, i getting the following failure now. would it be possible to revert those latest changes for query-fulltext that seem to be responsible for both? or is there anything i can do other than ignoring the test? kind regards angela

document.persistentCache.BroadcastTest failing

hi there are 2 tests failing with my checkout, which don't seem to be related to may pending changes (which i just wanted to test again): Tests run: 3, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.498 sec <<< FAILURE!

Re: svn commit: r1712931 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-commons/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-commons/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-core/src/main/java/or

hi michael but it's an internal method in an internal class and i don't see how an API consumer can overwrite it... that's why the check really looks redundant to me in particular as it would equally result in an NPE, which looks bad anyway. kind regards angela On 06/11/15 11:31, "Michael

Re: svn commit: r1712931 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-commons/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-commons/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-core/src/main/java/or

in the AbstractTree as for some methods that checks are in MutableTree already. so, i can instead move the checkForNull calls there, if you agree. kind regards angela On 06/11/15 11:40, "Angela Schreiber" <anch...@adobe.com> wrote: >hi michael > >but it's an internal method in an inter

Re: svn commit: r1712931 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-commons/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-commons/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/commons/ oak-core/src/main/java/or

tions. > >Michael > >On 6.11.15 10:40 , Angela Schreiber wrote: >> hi michael >> >> but it's an internal method in an internal class and i don't see >> how an API consumer can overwrite it... that's why the check really >> looks redundant to me in particular a

Re: trunk build failing

hi alex that might be related to OAK-3541. i committed an initial fix because the issue completely blocked me... though OAK-3541 is rather located in the version storage it might now reveal other bugs we didn't spot up to now. can you create another issue and link it to OAK-3541? i planned to

Re: svn commit: r1710162 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak: api/PropertyState.java api/Tree.java api/Type.java api/package-info.java plugins/memory/ModifiedNo

hi francesco i disagree with your statement below. having tests even for trivial changes just limits the risk of regressions now and for any later modifications... hoping for others having covered your code with some test, is IMO not good enough :-) so, please add some tests or verify that it's

Re: Implementation classes in o.a.j.o.spi package

hi francesco wouldn't it be easier to start with o.a.j.o.api package first? also that package has been very stable over the last months and would IMO be a better candidate than the spi. also the spi contains so many different things that most probably should rather be split (i.e. security from

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #6643: Broken

jcr regards angela On 15/10/15 15:29, "Travis CI" <ju...@apache.org> wrote: >Build Update for apache/jackrabbit-oak >- > >Build: #6643 >Status: Broken > >Duration: 2385 seconds >Commit: f7e4c2e6154750400c01ee13dd4bb

Re: Run maven-bundle-plugin:baseline when skipTests=true

hi francesco i only skip the tests if i am trying something out quickly but never if i am testing something that i plan to commit/push. so, IMO the skipTests is really just for getting an untested, incomplete, versioning-violating temporary build, when i need something quickly. e.g. i am running

Re: svn commit: r1703758 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-authorization-cug/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/spi/security/authorization/cug/impl/ oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak

and thanks again for your effort angela On 21/09/15 16:34, "Francesco Mari" <mari.france...@gmail.com> wrote: >Some updates on this topic. > >2015-09-18 17:27 GMT+02:00 Francesco Mari <mari.france...@gmail.com>: >> Hi Angela, >> >> 2015-09-18 16

Re: svn commit: r1703758 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-authorization-cug/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/spi/security/authorization/cug/impl/ oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak

hi francesco thanks a lot for taking care of this issue! very much appreciated. just a few comments: as just discussed in private required configurationin RandomAuthorizableNodeName is mandatory. please don't remove it... just because CQ has this configured by default doesn't mean that it's the

Re: JR snapshot dependency

hi Tommaso the reason why it is failing now is IMO due to reverting api extensions from the 2.10 branch and moving them to jackrabbit 2.11.0-SNAPSHOT without adjusting the Oak dependencies. without the SNAPSHOT dependencies i would not have been able to implement and commit the feature in Oak

build failure due to oak-pojosr ??

hi i get the following failures in oak-pojosr. is it only me? anybody working on this? Running org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.run.osgi.LuceneSupportTest Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 11.447 sec FAILURE!

Re: OAK-3201 - Working on it

done yours angela On 10/08/15 12:20, Francesco Mari mari.france...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on OAK-3201. Feel free to assign the issue to me, since I don't have enough privileges to do it myself. Thanks, Francesco

Re: Copy jackrabbit-webapp module to Oak as oak-webapp

hi On 06/08/15 12:11, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 6.8.15 11:59 , Chetan Mehrotra wrote: I understand the concern here Michael. But then I am not sure on the best way forward. It has mostly jsp and couple of classes. The class would need to be adapted to work with Oak and we

Re: [rep:User] autosave when bulk creating users

hi nicolas i am not too familiar with the sync mechanism... but looking just quickly at the code it seems that it persists the sync of each user/group. that looks reasonable to me (even if it comes with some Root.commit() overhead) as it allows to specifically retry or revert the changes made

Re: svn commit: r1693270 - in /jackrabbit/oak/trunk: oak-authorization-cug/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/spi/security/authorization/cug/ oak-authorization-cug/src/test/java/org/apache/jackra

oh... my bad. it should obviously be the Text utility from jcr-commons not the one from the test! sorry... angela On 04/08/15 15:47, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 29.7.15 4:21 , ang...@apache.org wrote: Author: angela Date: Wed Jul 29 14:21:18 2015 New Revision: 1693270 URL:

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #6116: Broken

- Build: #6116 Status: Broken Duration: 642 seconds Commit: c10c7a6ed1c52a4d3e37b9df7ce576502fc5ddea (trunk) Author: Angela Schreiber Message: OAK-3170 : Implement Group extensions as proposed in JCR-3880 git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk@1694049

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #6116: Broken

julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: On 2015-08-04 17:04, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2015-08-04 16:49, Angela Schreiber wrote: changes made with OAK-3170 require the API extensions in jackrabbit-api made with revision 1694048. i therefore expect that build to pass as soon as it picks that rev. br

Re: [rep:User] autosave when bulk creating users

hi nicolas On 31/07/15 10:48, Nicolas Peltier npelt...@adobe.com wrote: Hi, i¹ve seen that UserManager.autosave was an unsupported operation, and thus using LDAP sync with many users generates a save at each user/group creation which makes the sync very slow. not sure i get that if

Re: Utility method for show time duration in words

hi chetan tobi already added something along that line to ConfigurationParameters. - see ConfigurationParameters.Milliseconds afaik it's the opposite (converting human readable to milis), so we might also think of extending that one. regards anglea On 14/07/15 11:25, Chetan Mehrotra

Re: oak-exercise on maven

hi davide no objection from my side. it doesn't need to be deployed; it's sufficient to just build it and thus spot any kind of compile time incompatibilities. i created those exercises for an internal security training and they have proven to be really helpful. so, i want to make this available

Re: trunk build is failing due baseline plugin complaining

hi julian see - OAK-2006 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2006 - OAK-1956 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1956 i just forgot to commit the package-info files in r1685806 and fixed it again in 1685811. if it fails with your local changes you probably modified some exported

Re: Access control logging

i commented on the issue. kind regards angela On 12/06/15 02:29, Alexander Klimetschek aklim...@adobe.com wrote: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2981 wdyt? Alex

Re: ImmutableTreeTest.testHiddenExists , confusion.

hi ian here is my take on it: - the ImmutableTree is just a tiny wrapper around the regular non-secured Nodestate for the sake of allowing to make use of the hierarchy operations that are missing in the NodeState interface. those immutable (read-only) trees are meant to be used for oak

Re: special treatment of admin users.

https://github.com/ieb/jackrabbit-oak/blob/tenant/oak-core/src/main/java/o rg/apache/jackrabbit/oak/spi/security/tenant/TenantControlManager.java On 21 May 2015 at 08:13, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi ian please note that this is a configuration option that can be established

Re: special treatment of admin users.

Angela, On 21 May 2015 at 17:53, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi ian yes... that's what I am saying... Ok, thats fine I guessed right this morning when I abandoned my work in progress. with a few correction, where i you might have got me wrong: 1) i don't think we should use

FW: [FishEye and Crucible] [FishEye] Error processing smart commits for changeset 1673757 in repository jackrabbit

hi everyone can someone tell me why i get this kind of error messages every now and then when committing changes to oak? kind regards angela On 15/04/15 16:09, fehost...@atlassian.com fehost...@atlassian.com wrote: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com Automated message: Errors were encountered

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #5449: Errored

should already be fixed... forgot to commit changes in oak-core utilities required in oak-auth-external. sorry for the trouble angela

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #5438: Broken

Commit: e6cc4556855a94b0f7262e8f82028c465d49a645 (trunk) Author: Angela Schreiber Message: OAK-2712 : Possible null-dereference when calling ItemImpl#perform git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk@1673396 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 View the changeset: https

Re: TokenLoginModule Spring

hi mike Unfortunately I needed the User Manager which is only accessible from the JCR Repository. And I think their was a 2nd reason, but I don't remember it. So unless there is another way, this seems to be one of those decisions you need to make at the start of the project. Either you create

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.0

wrote: Hi, On 09/04/15 17:02, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: i will attach to proposed fix to the issue right now so everyone can take a look and make an educated guess on whether this is considered a change too risky to be included in the release. I think the question is rather, are we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.0

hi marcel i am inclined to mark this as blocker for the 1.2.0 release. it's not a new regression. i suspect though that we already had some reports like ('it only works if i use admin' or 'the item def is somehow broken) that we couldn't properly reproduce up to now. thanks to marius and tommaso

Re: Unnecessary itemExists overhead in JcrResourceProvider.createResource

hi felix Turns out that checking for item existence before accessing the item is JCR API best practice. So Sling follows best practice. by using deprecated API? If this generates a performance problem, I would suggest this to fix in the implementation of the API such that API usage best

Re: Unnecessary itemExists overhead in JcrResourceProvider.createResource

Hi Michael I would opt for the Jackrabbit API variant. Changing the semantics of the JCR API call is asking for severe troubles and I don't see any additional effort for another version of the spec (in particular since JSR 333 was never implemented in Jackrabbit or Oak). Extending the

Re: TokenLoginModule Spring

again, --mike On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi mike exactly... i guess, i need to improve the docu ;-) for the time being you can look at the various loginmodule related test cases in oak. e.g. TokenDefaultLoginModuleTest.testTokenCreationAndLogin

Re: TokenLoginModule Spring

in future requests? --mike On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi mike can't help you with spring security but with the second question: the TokenLoginModule will issue a new login token during the commit phase if the shared state contains credentials

[VOTE][RESULT] retire oak-mk into attic

Guggisberg (for removing oak-mk but keeping oak-mk-api) +1 Angela Schreiber Not sure, what the correct procedure is now. Shall I cancel this vote and start a new one for moving oak-mk and oak-mk-api to attic and removing all other MicroKernel implementations ? Or should I rather extend this very

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] retire oak-mk into attic

see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2697 On 30/03/15 12:49, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 30.3.15 10:01 , Angela Schreiber wrote: Not sure, what the correct procedure is now. Shall I cancel this vote and start a new one for moving oak-mk and oak-mk-api to attic

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] retire oak-mk into attic

release is out giving us enough time to get rid of the few remaining usages of the mk-api in oak-core and oak-it. see subtasks for OAK-2697 for the proposed sequence of steps. kind regards angela On 30/03/15 14:16, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse

Re: Autocreated properties with the ContentRepository API

hi francesco well... so far we claimed that it's the responsibility of the Oak API caller to make sure that items defined to be autocreated from a JCR point of view must be created. as the Oak API itself doesn't know about autocreated items. afaik delegating this to the TypeEditor will not work,

[VOTE] retire oak-mk into attic

Dear Oak Team During initial phase of building a new JCR content repository (OAK), we introduced a new persistence layer API (called MicroKernel API) originally implemented by the oak-mk module, which since then has been part of the Oak project. In the mean time the overall architecture and

Re: Autocreated properties with the ContentRepository API

14:26 GMT+01:00 Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com: hi francesco well... so far we claimed that it's the responsibility of the Oak API caller to make sure that items defined to be autocreated from a JCR point of view must be created. as the Oak API itself doesn't know about autocreated items

[VOTE] retire oak-mk-remote into attic

Dear Oak Team During initial phase of building a new JCR content repository (OAK), we added an remoting layer for the original persistence layer (called MicroKernel) which since then has been part of the Oak project. In the mean time the overall architecture and design has evolved and matured

Re: Status of oak-mk-remote and oak-mk

hi today i had a private conversation with philipp and michael and it was confirmed that the js client will no longer make use of those as the remoting is being implemented on top of the oak api. will therefore follow up as proposed on oak-dev for the next steps. kind regards angela

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #5326: Broken

: d64be536ff3661a1566c998e09ce40e7178c (trunk) Author: Angela Schreiber Message: OAK-2008 (WIP) git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk@1668829 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/compare/6016a5ad71d4...d64be536ff 36 View the full

Status of oak-mk-remote and oak-mk

hi michael i just had a discussion with philipp suter and francesco mari regarding the missing uuid uniqueness constraint validation in our granite.js + microkernel setup, which has been reported as vulnerability last year. during that discussion i learned that granite.js is no longer making use

Re: Using the OpenAuthorizationConfigurationClass

wrote: Hi Angela, I got it working thanks! I'll be glad to add my 10 cents to the project. Hopefully I'll have a patch for you within the next few days. Kind regards, Raymond On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi raymond alternatively you may want

Re: Using the OpenAuthorizationConfigurationClass

there is no WhiteboardAuthorizableNodeName available, but I see it in the securityProviderImpl class as far back as October. Should I use an even older version? Many thanks, Raymond On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi raymond it depends on what kind

Re: Using the OpenAuthorizationConfigurationClass

hi raymond it depends on what kind of security setup you wish to have. in any case you have to set the desired SecurityProvider which depending on your needs requires more/less customisation. oak current provides 2 implementations: - OpenSecurityProvider : a very limited one that grants full

Re: Adding simple permissions to users

hi raymond how do you setup the security parts of the oak repository? for what you want to do, you probably only want to have parts of the default security modules in place... depending on which parts you wish to have and which parts should be disabled/replace, you may just reconfigure the

Re: Oak 1.1.6 cut

hi all i would also like to include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2465 into 1.6. antonio already provided a patch i hope to get it resolved today. kind regards angela On 30/01/15 10:29, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote: Hello team, Monday should be cut day. For 1.1.6

Re: Oak user management

what about that http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/user.html br angela On 21/01/15 06:15, Raymond Boswel raymondbos...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Team, I feel like this should be really obvious, but I can't find this documented anywhere. At the moment I've figured out how to do most of

Re: svn commit: r1651988 - /jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/security/privilege/JcrAllCommitHook.java

thanks for the hint. did you already commit it? gruss angela On 15/01/15 10:28, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 15.1.15 10:08 , ang...@apache.org wrote: +after.compareAgainstBaseState(EMPTY_NODE, new PrivilegeDiff(this, name, nodeBuilder.child(name))); This

Re: jackrabbit-oak build #5087: Broken

: 97b903ea989cd5f66a55ac8af8254a697b453dde (trunk) Author: Angela Schreiber Message: OAK-1268 : Add support for composite authorization setup (WIP) git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk@1651155 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak

Re: Oak 1.0.9 release plan

hi amit sorry for the delay was busy elsewhere while running the build with the merged changes. it's committed in rev. 1646185 regards angela On 17/12/14 10:35, Amit Jain am...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Amit Jain am...@apache.org wrote: OAK-2350 @ Angela Would it

Merge OAK-2317 into 1.0 Branch

hi i would like to merge the fix for OAK-2317 [0] into the 1.0 branch... a patch is already attached at the issue. if nobody objects i will fix the issue before we cut the next release from the 1.0 branch. kind regards angela [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2317

Re: Support for sort with lower case (OAK-2266 : UserQueryManager: Sort Ignore Case Reversed)

hi chetan quit frankly i am not sure this was used very often as nobody complained about the bug for years now. unless we have a compelling reason for this, i would rather list this as known limitation in the query and user-query documentation section along with an instruction on to fix it in

Re: Support for sort with lower case (OAK-2266 : UserQueryManager: Sort Ignore Case Reversed)

Mehrotra chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Angela, On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: unless we have a compelling reason for this, i would rather list this as known limitation in the query and user-query documentation section along with an instruction

Re: Export org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.tree from oak-core

Hi Chetan I am not in favour of exporting org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.tree. We already have too many thinks exported from oak-core (like e.g. VersionStoreImpl) and I think it's bad of other modules depend on the implementation details of oak-core. But maybe you can elaborate why this would

Re: Merging OAK-2015 and OAK-2255 into 1.0 branch

sure... i thought the issue reference would be enough :-) OAK-2015 addresses a bug with the handling of jcr:all in the permission store. more precisely: since jcr:all is a dynamic privilege the corresponding entries in the permission store must reflect that dynamic nature and not the set of

Merging OAK-2015 and OAK-2255 into 1.0 branch

hi alex was recently asking whether https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2255 should be merged into the 1.0 branch. based on a discussion wrt merging fixes into the 1.0 branch, i would like to suggest that we merge both fixes OAK-2015 and OAK-2255 into the branch. wdyt? angela

Re: PermissionStoreImpl flush doesn't fully refresh it's root reference

Hi Alex As discussed yesterday, I think you are right. The PermissionStoreImpl should always get a new instance upon refresh... that issues has been introduced while addressing the jcr:all issue earlier this year. I will fix it today. Thanks for spotting! Angela On 05/11/14 20:13, Alex

Re: Oak 1.1.2 release

hi davide how can we make an 1.0.8 release but not an 1.1.2? afaik all issues that were still open for 1.1.2 on friday where also target for 1.0.8. i am waiting for the latest trunk _finally_ making it's way into granite. if the 1.0.x get cut regularly but not the 1.1.x loads i will have merge

Re: temporary instability of the 1.0 branch builds

hi alex i somehow had the impression that the 1.0 branch is just for fixes... does it really make sense to also merge new features into the branch? and doesn't this somehow defeat the purpose of keeping 1.0 stable while developing new stuff in the 'unstable' 1.1 branch aka trunk? kind regards

Re: temporary instability of the 1.0 branch builds

should add to 1.0 branch, but rather have additional features in 1.2/trunk only. Cheers Michael On 17 Oct 2014, at 15:36, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: hi alex i somehow had the impression that the 1.0 branch is just for fixes... does it really make sense to also merge new features

Re: Versioning of [nt:file]

hi aman it depends a bit on how you want your version content to look like and what you want to restore... the file or the content node? second you have to look at the OnParentVersion flag defined with the node type definition which - as you can see in JSR 283 - defines what happens to the child

Re: Versioning of [nt:file]

, Aman Arora -Original Message- From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:anch...@adobe.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:25 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Versioning of [nt:file] hi aman it depends a bit on how you want your version content to look like and what you want

oak-run: AbstractLoginTest seems to be broken

hi devs i just tried to run the LoginTest present with the benchmark and found that is broken (see below)... does anybody knows what could have caused this? the last time i tried it out a while ago i didn't get that error. the last modifications since it touched it were 26/09/14 05:32 amitj

Jira: Oak Fix Versions

Hi Devs I am bit confused with the set of fix versions that we currently have defined in our Oak Jira. What we currently have is: - 1.0 - 1.0.x for releases of the 1.0 branch - 1.1.0 for the 1.1.0 release - 1.1.1 - 2.0 What I am actually missing is 1.2.0 for everything that should go into the

Re: Jira: Oak Fix Versions

Thanks a lot! On 08/10/14 14:36, Marcel Reutegger mreut...@adobe.com wrote: Hi, On 08/10/14 14:20, Marcel Reutegger mreut...@adobe.com wrote: because we don't have a 1.2 version ;) I'll create one in JIRA and update unresolved issues. Done. Please change the fix version back to 1.1.x when you

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on oak-trunk-win7

the failing tests are: - testRenameEventHandling(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.JackrabbitNodeTest): Expected NODE_MOVED event upon renaming a node (received: latch1 timed out none; next event after additional addNode/save operation: type 2 1412666439717ms /testroot/a, type 32 1412666439717ms

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on oak-trunk-win7

ok... thanks for the pointer! angela On 07/10/14 15:47, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: This is tracked via https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2165. Unfortunately the failure only occurs on this instance. I'm trying to track it down. On 7 October 2014 15:42, Angela Schreiber anch

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on oak-trunk-win7

Dürig wrote: This is tracked via https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2165. Unfortunately the failure only occurs on this instance. I'm trying to track it down. On 7 October 2014 15:42, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: the failing tests are: - testRenameEventHandling

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on oak-trunk-win7

hi michael should be fixed now... if i overlooked something i should have let it rest until tomorrow ;-) good night angela On 07/10/14 18:59, Angela Schreiber anch...@adobe.com wrote: ok... that looks like my fault ;-) i will look into it tomorrow angela On 07/10/14 18:08, Michael Dürig mdue

Re: Cleanup NodeStore and MK implementations (was: Re: AW: Confusions about API's and Flavours in the documentation ...)

...@apache.org wrote: On 12.8.14 4:08 , Angela Schreiber wrote: hi claus And yes, it's confusing. .. so I'm not alone here :-) no... nobody gets it... in particular as one term is also the marketing term for the other... just makes the mess a complete mess. as far as i am concerned i

Re: AW: Confusions about API's and Flavours in the documentation ...

hi claus And yes, it's confusing. .. so I'm not alone here :-) no... nobody gets it... in particular as one term is also the marketing term for the other... just makes the mess a complete mess. as far as i am concerned i don't know any good reason for keeping two APIs for the same thing. IMO we

Cleanup NodeStore and MK implementations (was: Re: AW: Confusions about API's and Flavours in the documentation ...)

with a particular impl. such a move would not only prevent us from introducing unintended package dependencies but would also reduce the number of dependencies present with oak-core. wdyt? kind regards angela On 12/08/14 16:20, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 12.8.14 4:08 , Angela

Re: AW: How to implement a queue in Oak?

Hi Thomas What about making the proposed solution built-in with Oak? For example by defining a mixin type oak:Created extending from mix:created... the latter is already widely used and the oak extension could just offer the additional ability to be orderable upon search. In addition the

Re: HTTP binding

hi lukas what you looked as is just initial draft nothing that you can use with your jackalope setup... it's still not ready and far away from being a 'native' implementation of the spi server side part that would allow you to remote the jcr calls without having yet another jcr implementation

Re: Builder VS State

same here apart from that Node is a term used in JCR and i don't want to see another Node interface in the stack that makes things complicated.. it would then be: Jcr-Node - Tree - Oak-Node that looks really bad. regards angela On 27/06/14 11:54, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On

Re: Clarification on the UUID generation

hi alex there are some 'generete-autocreated-items' methods... some parts of are located in TreeUtil.autoCreateItems but i don't recall exactly where it is used. in any case, jcr:uuid is one of these autocreated properties. maybe a bug somewhere or some sort of backwards incompatibility.

Re: [DISCUSS] - QueryIndex selection

hi jukka this is not quite true. as i will explain below. first i would strongly recommend not to rely on the current implementation. if we have the requirement to evaluated permissions based on the path we may extend the permissionprovider which IMO is the key API for these cases; not the

Re: Using PreAuthentication with Token creation

hi chetan sound reasonable to me. kind regards angela On 05/06/14 13:51, Chetan Mehrotra chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am trying to use PreAuthentication [2] with Token Creation support in Oak. For that I have following LoginModules configured in order below 1. TokenLoginModule 2.

Re: oak-users list (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.0)

fine with me On 19/05/14 10:41, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: On 19.5.14 10:17 , Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Torgeir Veimo torgeir.ve...@gmail.com wrote: Is there to be an oak-user mailing list, or should one use the jackrabbit users mailing list

Re: Snapshot artefacts in the release

hi michael no nothing trunk specific... that all applies to 1.0. gruss angela On 06/05/14 16:43, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On 6.5.14 10:17 , Michael Dürig wrote: For oak-doc my preference would be to bump it to 1.0 and merge all relevant changes from trunk This would

Upgrade to Oak and Mandatory CommitHooks

Hi Jukka We had an issue during upgrade testing from jackrabbit to oak that seemed to be caused by a missing commit hook (PermissionHook) as the access control content was present after the upgrade but the entries in the permission store were missing altogether. When thinking about it I

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >