Hi,
Recently OAK-9712 [0] was created and quickly resolved, via the associated
PR [1]. Between those two events, I commented on OAK-9712 with a question
that I wanted to be clarified. It seems however that this question wasn't
seen before the PR was merged.
I assume this was a simple
Hi,
I'd like to consider OAK-9710 and discuss whether this is a change we feel
we can accept. The concept is to allow a client to specify their own TTL
for a direct download URI, so long as that value is not greater than the
configured default value.
When direct download capability was
Hi oak-dev,
I'm currently working on some black-box tests that run against a
(non-Sling) servlet atop Oak. When one of these tests runs, it will
automatically trace repository activity and report the results of those
traces. To do this I've implemented technology in my servlet which is very
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 1:46 AM Aaron Anderson
wrote:
> In regards to clustering, has anyone on the Jackrabbit Oak team evaluated
> Apache Ignite? I can't say enough good things about it. It has clustering,
> persistence, SQL support, support for locks, queues, and semaphores, it
> doesn't have
+1 for me too. I agree w/ Marcel on not renaming the main branch - I don't
see a need for this now.
-MR
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:31 AM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
>
> On 19.05.21, 09:24, "Konrad Windszus" wrote:
> > I hereby propose to
> >
> > 1. migrate the SVN repository at
>
What's the reason for #3 - changing the main branch name from "trunk" to
"main"? I'm not particularly opposed, but it seems to me "trunk" works
just fine as a name - is there a specific reason to rename?
-MR
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 3:13 AM Konrad Windszus wrote:
> Currently the page at
>
Hi,
I'd love to have some input on OAK-9304.
I'm trying to address a character encoding issue in direct binary access
download URIs, and have a fix in place but have run into a bit of a snag as
described in the ticket. If it is possible to sort it out and get a fix
committed this week I'd very
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 7:33 AM Julian Reschke
wrote:
> Am 22.09.2020 um 18:10 schrieb Matt Ryan:
> > Hi Tanvi,
> >
> > Support for Elasticsearch in Oak is not implemented yet and is being
> > actively worked on. I'm sure there will be documentation when it is
&g
Hi Tanvi,
Support for Elasticsearch in Oak is not implemented yet and is being
actively worked on. I'm sure there will be documentation when it is
supported in Oak - but we aren't there yet.
-MR
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:49 AM Tanvi Shah wrote:
> Hi,
> I was looking for elastic search
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:53 AM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.34.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.23.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.23
>
WHERE:
[INFO]
Hi Tanvi,
I recommend starting by breaking down the upload performance from the
client perspective. For example, if you are using a browser client, you
should be able to break the upload down into three parts - upload
initiation, upload, and upload completion. Try to obtain timing
performance
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:14 AM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.30.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:23 PM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.28.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:46 AM Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.22.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
Hi Sudhir,
I can help with some of your questions.
I'm not as familiar with document store implementations as others on this
list so I'll let them give more details there. I think it is fair to say
that the MongoDB document store implementation is used more commonly in
production than
Hi Vivek,
Lucene indexing is a bit tricky to set up. Here is a good example on how
to do it:
-
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-lucene/src/test/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/composite/blueGreen/Persistence.java
This class is used in a couple of tests in the "composite"
Hi,
I intend to backport the fix for OAK-8969 to the 1.22 branch. It addresses
a somewhat obscure bug where a user that requests to ignore the domain
override can get the wrong download URI if download URI caching is
enabled. The fix is easy and low-risk.
Please let me know if there are
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:40 PM Matt Ryan wrote:
> Hi oak-dev,
>
> I'm researching how indexing works in Oak to better understand it, and
> lately the focus is how indexes register for notification of changes in the
> repository.
>
> This appears to be pretty straightf
Hi oak-dev,
I'm researching how indexing works in Oak to better understand it, and
lately the focus is how indexes register for notification of changes in the
repository.
This appears to be pretty straightforward: When the Jcr object is being
set up, you provide one or more Observer instances,
Hi,
I intend to backport the fix for OAK-8936 to the 1.22 branch.
The fix is a one-line change in the code with some new test code to cover
the bug and the bugfix. I consider this a low-risk change. A patch
describing the change is attached to OAK-8936 and is visible at [0].
[0] -
Hi Jorge,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:40 PM jorgeeflorez .
wrote:
> Hi Matt, thanks a lot for your answer.
>
> If your storage is "local" (meaning it appears as a local filesystem to
> > Oak), I'd probably use OakFileDataStore. It implements SharedDataStore
> so
> > you can share the same
Hi,
I think I probably will need a bit more information about your use case to
know how to help you best; can you provide a bit more detail about your
environment and what you are hoping to accomplish?
If your storage is "local" (meaning it appears as a local filesystem to
Oak), I'd probably use
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.1.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.1
> [ ] -1 Do not release this
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.20.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.20
> [ ] -1 Do not release this
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:19 AM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12.01.20, 15:40, "jorgeeflorez ."
> wrote:
>
> > If I create two backends
> > (Oak instances), both using the same type of document and blob store,
> > and both pointing to the same "location" (folder in a file system,
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.20.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.20.0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this
Hi,
I'm trying to wrap up OAK-8105 (migrate AzureDataStore to latest Azure v12
SDK) and I ran into an issue with MongoAzureDataStoreBlobGCTest in oak-it.
Basically the superclass's MongoBlobGCTest.gcLongRunningBlobCollection test
was failing because not enough blobs were being deleted from the
Hi,
I'm working on OAK-8105 which is to update AzureDataStore to use the new
Azure v12 SDK instead of the deprecated v8 SDK, and may have run into a
snag where I could use some input from the team.
The main issue: Current cloud data store implementations (Azure and S3)
have the following
+1. I was wondering this same thing.
=MR
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Julian Reschke
wrote:
> On 04.03.2019 14:29, Davide Giannella wrote:
> > ...
>
> Picking up an old thread...
>
> So we've released 1.12.0, 1.14.0, 1.16.0, and will release 1.18.0 next
> week.
>
> What we apparently did
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:24 AM Julian Reschke wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.18.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.5.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.5
> [ ] -1 Do not release this
Hi,
OAK-8599 is committed now so we are good to go for 1.10 from that point of
view.
-MR
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:30 AM Matt Ryan wrote:
> Hi Nitin,
>
> I need the backport for OAK-8599 to be in 1.10.5 if possible. I've
> updated the labels. I should have no problem having t
Hi,
I propose to backport the bugfix for OAK-8599 to 1.10. This fix makes the
implementation more in line with the Javadoc and is a low-risk fix.
-MR
Hi,
I propose to backport the fix to OAK-8298 to 1.10. This is a bug fix for
direct binary access to ensure that binaries added via direct upload are
also tracked via the blob id tracker.
The fix is low risk in my view.
-MR
Hi oak-dev,
Creating a signed download URI itself is really fast and does not require
communication with the cloud storage service (e.g. Azure, S3) to create the
URI. However, in the current implementation we actually make at least
three network calls when we do this:
1 and 2) When we call
Welcome Mohit!
-MR
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:51 AM Julian Sedding wrote:
> Welcome Mohit!
>
> Regards
> Julian
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:25 PM Woonsan Ko wrote:
> >
> > Welcome, Mohit!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Woonsan
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:31 AM Tommaso Teofili
> > wrote:
> >
Hi Nitin,
I should have OAK-8520 backported to 1.10.4 by the end of the week,
assuming nobody objects to the proposed backport.
-MR
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:52 AM Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
>
>
> I am planning to cut 1.10.4 for oak on Monday (12th Aug) .
>
> This is the only issue in
Hi oak-dev,
I propose to backport the OAK-8520 bugfix to 1.10.4.
The fix is pretty low risk. The issue it fixes can be a problem for the
use case described in the bug. There is a unit test for the fix for both
S3 and Azure.
-MR
Hi oak-dev,
I'm asking for your feedback on two proposed improvements to direct binary
access.
As we've been testing the use of direct binary access we've come across a
couple of interesting edge cases. I've created proposals for these edge
cases in OAK-8519 and OAK-8520.
OAK-8519 - When
Ah yes, I think that was a typo. Thanks Julian.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:14 AM Julian Reschke
wrote:
> On 18.07.2019 02:06, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I propose to backport the fix for OAK-7998 to 1.10.3.
> >
> > The issue in OAK-7998 is that it is pos
Hi,
I propose to backport the fix for OAK-7998 to 1.10.3.
The issue in OAK-7998 is that it is possible to obtain a direct download
URI for a binary that doesn't exist in blob storage. While not usually
possible, this situation can arise if the binary in question was added via
addRecord() and
Hi,
The next Oakathon has now been scheduled for August 19-23, 2019. It will
take place at the Adobe office at Barfüsserplatz 6 in Basel, Switzerland.
All contributors to Apache Jackrabbit Oak are invited to attend, either in
person or via videoconference.
OAK-8416 has been created for this
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.14.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.14.0
>
>
Where:
[INFO] Apache Maven
Hi,
I'm in the process of updating AzureDataStore to use the latest Azure SDK -
which requires almost a complete rewrite of AzureBlobStoreBackend. See
OAK-8105.
In doing this I'm seeing some minor features in the old implementation that
do not appear to have a direct counterpart in the new SDK.
Hi oak-dev,
I want to draw your attention to OAK-7702, which discusses adding
capability to the direct binary access feature to use CDN URIs instead of
standard URIs. Both cloud service providers that Oak supports, Azure and
AWS, offer CDN capabilities to serve content in a blob storage
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:11 AM Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> The official documentation is here:
> https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/features/direct-binary-access.html
>
> If the information you are looking for is missing, then it would probably
> be good
> to file an issue to
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:53 AM Julian Reschke
wrote:
> On 20.03.2019 11:36, Davide Giannella wrote:
> > On 05/03/2019 10:18, Davide Giannella wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2019 13:31, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> >>> As you mentioned, we don't need to increase the major version whenever
> >>> we branch. I
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:08 AM Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.2.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
+1 from me. Every two months seems a bit more practical for where we are
now.
Thanks Davide!
-MR
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:59 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
> Good afternoon team,
>
> as we discussed in separate threads about strategies and version numbers
> and we agreed in principles on the
Hi,
I've learned that Azure has released a new Java SDK for blob storage that
replaces the SDK originally used to create the AzureDataStore. The new SDK
is not backwards compatible with the original, but contains a key bug fix
for an Oak bug identified in OAK-8013.
I'd like to have a discussion
For reference: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8013
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:41 PM Matt Ryan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to backport OAK-8013 to Oak 1.10. This change introduces a
> workaround for an issue with the direct binary access code that is caused
> by a b
Hi,
I would like to backport OAK-8013 to Oak 1.10. This change introduces a
workaround for an issue with the direct binary access code that is caused
by a bug in the Azure SDK.
When a client requests a signed direct download URI, Oak includes a
specification in the signed URI to tell the
Hi,
I've updated OAK-8013 with a proposal for how to move forward for now.
Please take a look and let me know what you think.
-MR
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:52 AM Matt Ryan wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:07 AM Matt Ryan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:07 AM Matt Ryan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:05 AM Julian Reschke
> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-02-01 17:27, Matt Ryan wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Looking for feedback on this. WDYT?
>> > ...
>>
>> Did you
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:05 AM Julian Reschke
wrote:
> On 2019-02-01 17:27, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > ...
> > Looking for feedback on this. WDYT?
> > ...
>
> Did you already report a bug to Azure?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Next steps in my plan are to re
Hi,
I'm investigating OAK-8013 and looking for more opinions on what to do.
The problem is not as simple to solve as it seems due to inconsistent
behavior in Azure, which appears to be a bug in their SDK, and I'm not sure
how to handle this in the meantime.
The basic issue for OAK-8013 relates
Hi,
I've created OAK-7996 [0] to discuss allowing us to disable automatic text
extraction by configuration instead of using a tika.config in an index
definition to do it.
This was originally proposed as a possible Oak change last November, but in
discussion we agreed not to attempt this change
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Julian Reschke wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.11.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:51 PM Davide Giannella wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.16.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:40 PM Davide Giannella wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:55 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.0.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
The updated release notes show this feature now, thanks Davide.
-MR
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:32 AM Matt Ryan wrote:
> Hi Davide,
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:14 AM Davide Giannella
> wrote:
>
>> I've produced the release notes and will probably produce the official
&g
Hi Davide,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:14 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
> I've produced the release notes and will probably produce the official
> cut tomorrow morning GMT.
>
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/branches/1.10/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
> have a look and either commit or
Hi Davide,
It would be nice to include a fix for the documentation issue brought up
on-list by Alex Klimetschek a couple of weeks ago. It probably shouldn't
block the release, but I'll see if I can get a fix in for that today.
-MR
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:02 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 7:37 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.10.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
Hi Emily,
Content is stored in Oak in two different configurable storage services.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but basically the structure of
content repository - the content tree, nodes, properties, etc. - is stored
in a Node Store [0] and the binary content is stored in a Blob Store
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 9:59 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.13.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
I'm +1; as Davide said, after Christmas :)
Working out details seems like a good topic for an upcoming Oakathon,
assuming the general feeling is in favor of the change.
-MR
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:58 AM Francesco Mari
wrote:
> Given the recent announcement about gitbox.apache.org, the
Hi Bertrand,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:00 AM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to find out whether the Oak similarity search functionality is
> active. I talked to Tommaso and he recommended doing a search under
> /oak:index [1].
>
> That works fine [2] but I need to use a service
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:20 AM Davide Giannella wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.10.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:01 AM Julian Reschke wrote:
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.9.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [X] +1 Release this package as Apache
On September 26, 2018 at 7:44:48 AM, Davide Giannella (dav...@apache.org)
wrote:
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.23.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
[X] +1 Release this
Hi oak-dev,
I’ve just created OAK-7769 in which I would like us to consider backporting
the similarity search feature that Tommaso implemented in OAK-7575 to Oak
1.8. There is a patch file included in the issue which applies cleanly to
1.8 and all unit tests pass. It includes unit tests written
On September 12, 2018 at 3:24:34 AM, Davide Giannella (dav...@apache.org)
wrote:
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.14
Where:
Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe;
2018-06-17T12:33:14-06:00)
OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.13.6", arch:
On September 10, 2018 at 12:46:27 AM, Michael Dürig (mdue...@apache.org)
wrote:
Hi,
Welcome to the team, Matt!
Michael
Thanks Michael and everyone else on the PMC - happy to be here!
-MR
On September 11, 2018 at 7:40:45 AM, Davide Giannella (dav...@apache.org)
wrote:
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.30
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
where:
Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe;
2018-06-17T12:33:14-06:00)
On August 28, 2018 at 7:01:30 AM, Davide Giannella (dav...@apache.org)
wrote:
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.8
Where:
[INFO] Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe;
2018-06-17T12:33:14-06:00)
[INFO] OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.13.6",
Hi,
Earlier today I created OAK-7717 for a request to change documentation on
the direct binary access feature. I’ve also submitted a pull request,
https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/98, with a proposed version
of the change.
Please review and let me know if you prefer the changed
On July 31, 2018 at 9:47:26 AM, Manfred Baedke (manfred.bae...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.6.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
[X] +1 Release this
Hi,
Oak now has a fair few cloud-based modules - meaning, modules that enable
Oak to make use of cloud service provider capabilities in order for the
feature to work - among them being oak-blob-cloud, oak-blob-cloud-azure,
and oak-segment-azure.
I’m not as familiar with oak-segment-azure, but I
but simply have not had
the time, I apologize.
Can progress be made with things as they are currently? Maybe there are
still some issues to be resolved, but if some of the supporting pull
requests can be accepted at least that would be a good start.
Thanks
-MR
On June 21, 2018 at 9:24:44 PM, Matt
On June 21, 2018 at 6:53:44 AM, Marcel Reutegger (mreut...@adobe.com.invalid)
wrote:
Hi Matt,
New files in your pull request have a different format for the Apache
License header. Can you please change them to match the format of
existing source files?
Yes - I believe I have fixed this now, let
On June 21, 2018 at 1:35:30 AM, Michael Dürig (mdue...@apache.org) wrote:
Hi,
Any chance for cleaning up the history? This will make it much easier to
review an to maintain once applied.
Certainly; I will try.
I know that this can be a bit of a pain. But in my eyes the revision
history is
On June 20, 2018 at 10:25:20 PM, Julian Reschke (julian.resc...@gmx.de)
wrote:
On 2018-06-21 01:21, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A pull request [0] has been submitted containing a proposal for a Direct
> Binary Access feature in Oak.
...
>
> Regards,
>
> -MR
Hi Matt,
it
discussion than a
quick resolution on-list.
-MR
On June 20, 2018 at 5:21:39 PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote:
Hi,
A pull request [0] has been submitted containing a proposal for a Direct
Binary Access feature in Oak. The proposed feature is described at [1].
In a nutshell, it outlines a mechanism
Hi,
A pull request [0] has been submitted containing a proposal for a Direct
Binary Access feature in Oak. The proposed feature is described at [1].
In a nutshell, it outlines a mechanism by which direct access to binary
data in a cloud-based Oak data store can be made available via signed URLs
Hi Oliver,
Can you provide a bit more detail about what you are looking for?
I think what is unclear to me is whether you are speaking about multiple
Oak instances or just one. I’m guessing what you have in mind is something
like one Oak instance can write to a repo, and a second Oak instance
+1 (non-binding)
On April 4, 2018 at 7:51:24 AM, Chetan Mehrotra (chetan.mehro...@gmail.com)
wrote:
+1. In addition we should also include common set of test case which
can be used to validate the SPI implementations. Also we can leave
oak-lucene as is for now and just create new module and
Hi Tomek,
Some time ago (November 2016 Oakathon IIRC) some people explored a similar
concept using AWS (S3) instead of Azure. If you haven’t discussed with
them already it may be worth doing so. IIRC Stefan Egli and I believe
Michael Duerig were involved and probably some others as well.
-MR
Hi,
I’m wondering if anyone else would be interested in having a session at the
upcoming Oakathon to discuss a broader vision or plan for Oak over the next
couple of years. In my way of thinking the purpose would be to step out of
the specific domains where we focus and talk more broadly about
Interesting.
Are there use cases where users should prefer Jackrabbit over Oak? Or is
Oak considered a full replacement for Jackrabbit in every case?
-MR
On February 27, 2018 at 8:53:53 AM, Robert Munteanu (romb...@apache.org)
wrote:
Hi,
Recent questions to the jackrabbit user's list lead
Hi,
On February 22, 2018 at 3:32:29 AM, Amit Jain (am...@ieee.org) wrote:
Hi,
Could you please move this discussion to the relvant jira issue.
Thanks
Amit
Sure. Moved to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7083.
-MR
Hi,
On February 21, 2018 at 10:32:48 PM, Amit Jain (am...@ieee.org) wrote:
Hi,
> Now the problem comes when secondary tries to run the sweep phase. It
will
> first try to verify that a references file exists for each repository
file
> in DS_P - and fail. This fails because primary deleted its
Hi oak-dev,
I’ve created a new pull request [0] to review changes I made to get garbage
collection to work for the composite data store. I’d love some feedback.
Since this entails a change to the MarkSweepGarbageCollector, we should
discuss the change here to see if there are concerns with it
/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/71
-MR
On October 26, 2017 at 5:39:29 AM, Tomek Rekawek (reka...@adobe.com.invalid)
wrote:
Hi Matt,
> On 24 Oct 2017, at 21:54, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote:
> It is still unclear to me how this works in terms of configuration files,
> and how
Hi oak-dev,
Any feedback on the PR [0]? I believe these changes could go into Oak
irrespective of whether CompositeDataStore makes it into the next release
or not, but I believe they are needed for CompositeDataStore to move
forward.
-MR
On October 27, 2017 at 2:31:15 PM, Matt Ryan (o
Hi,
I updated the PR today with AbstractDataStoreService and an implementation
for it (FileDataStoreService).
@Tomek (and anyone else) please take a look and see if this is heading in
the direction you had in mind.
-MR
On October 26, 2017 at 4:20:56 PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote:
Hi
explore other options.
[0] - https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/71
-MR
On October 26, 2017 at 10:24:53 AM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote:
Hi,
In another thread there’s a discussion going on regarding the
implementation of CompositeDataStore and the need for a factory class
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
