Help with unit tests for JMX stats for S3DataStore

to help me unit test this thing? I feel that it should be easier to unit test new code than this, so maybe I’m missing something. Thanks -Matt Ryan

oak-segment-tar not working with latest oak-core?

Hi, After making a change to oak-core and then trying to leverage that change in oak-segment-tar, I ran into a build issue that had to do with an API change in MarkSweepGarbageCollector and the extension of that class within SegmentDataStoreBlobGCIT. I created OAK-4772 and submitted a patch, but

Re: Feedback on S3DataStore JMX stats patch (OAK-4712)

New patch attached to address feedback in OAK-4712 on the last patch. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > This patch I believe addresses the issues identified with the previous > patch. I've also uploaded it to OAK-4712. > > Looking for r

Re: Feedback on S3DataStore JMX stats patch (OAK-4712)

Aug 27, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > > > Use this patch instead; updated patch from latest in trunk. > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi Oak Devs, > >> > >&

Re: Expected behavior of StringUtils.estimateMemoryUsage() ?

I created OAK-4830 for this and submitted a patch to the ticket. Thanks! On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Marcel Reutegger <mreut...@adobe.com> wrote: > On 19/09/16 16:08, Matt Ryan wrote: > >> What about for null though? Currently this method will throw a null >> poi

Expected behavior of StringUtils.estimateMemoryUsage() ?

Hi, I'm creating some unit tests for StringUtils.estimateMemoryUsage() in oak-commons, and in doing so I noticed that it returns a value of 48 for an empty string. Is this expected? >From a naive point of view it would seem to me that a null string should return 0, and likewise an empty string,

Re: Expected behavior of StringUtils.estimateMemoryUsage() ?

keeps a char[] and an > int for the computed hash. > > As for the estimated value of an empty string. Even in this > case the String will have the char[] and int for the hash. > That is, the method will never return 0. > > Regards > Marcel > > > On 17/09/16 01:08,

Feedback on S3DataStore JMX stats patch (OAK-4712)

Hi Oak Devs, I've created OAK-4712 and submitted a patch for the same. I've attached the same patch to this email. The submission is to add a new MBean, S3DataStoreStats, which will allow reporting via JMX about the state of the S3DataStore. Two metrics are intended. The first is to report

Re: Feedback on S3DataStore JMX stats patch (OAK-4712)

Use this patch instead; updated patch from latest in trunk. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > Hi Oak Devs, > > I've created OAK-4712 and submitted a patch for the same. I've attached > the same patch to this email. > > The submissi

Re: Documenting enhancements done in Oak 1.6

Hi Chetan, I created OAK-5977 [0] for S3DataStore changes as a subtask. Perhaps it should be assigned to Amit Jain who probably has the best understanding of all the S3DataStore changes in 1.6. [0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5977 -MR On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Chetan

Re: New module oak-blob-cloud-azure?

I tend to agree with Arek on this one. It feels a good logical division to have it separate, primarily so when updates to the Azure SDK are released, a new version of this module can be released without having to update oak-blob-cloud. By that same argument it may make sense at some point to do

Re: A federated data store

in AbstractDataStore (not AbstractBlobStore). Sorry about the mix-up. On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at the possibility of creating a new kind of data store, let's > call it a federated data store, and wanted to see what every

Re: A federated data store

hro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > > Oak would then be > > able to choose which data store to use based on a number of criteria, > like > > file size, JCR path, node type, existence of

Re: [m12] Effort to Improve Modularisation of Oak

Great work so far to everyone involved in this effort. I'm under the impression that this refactoring will constitute a change in the public API contract of Oak. In reading the links it seems to hint at this but whether or not this will actually result in a public API change isn't explicitly

A federated data store

/jackrabbit/JCR%20Binary%20Usecase - Matt Ryan

Re: Review OAK-4933 (AzureBlobStore)

Hi, I gave some review in GitHub. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Raul-Nicolae Hudea wrote: > Hi, > > Please review OAK-4933 ([1]) which adds support for an AzureBlobStore > using Microsoft Azure Blob Storage as underlying storage. Its > implementation is similar to how

Re: Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

ooked like this may degrade performance as writing to NFS would be slower and in fact we have a CachingDataStore option implemented for FileDataStore configured on NFS to improve performance. Thanks Amit On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > Hi oak-dev,

Re: Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

Hi Amit, On July 31, 2017 at 4:49:37 AM, Amit Jain (am...@ieee.org) wrote: With this in mind can't we just conceptually have a Composite DataStore (Not drilling down to interface/class hierarchy and API yet) which can then support the following: * User provided "type" of blob to influence the

[CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

Hi, I’ve been thinking the past few days about how a composite blob store might go about prioritizing the delegate blob stores for reading and writing, considering concepts like storage filters on a blob store, read-only blob stores, and archive or “cold” blob stores (which we don’t currently

Re: Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

Hi Amit, > Storage class should be included if it can be, so long as it serves a > purpose. I’m not sure I’m seeing the purpose yet. > > Why I added "storage class" as separate from "priority" was to highlight some DataStore(s) would need special handling for reads/writes for e.g. a read from

Re: [CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

Hi Thomas, Thank you for taking the time to offer a review. I’ve been going through the suggested readings and will continue to do so. Some comments inline below. On August 15, 2017 at 12:25:54 AM, Thomas Mueller (muel...@adobe.com.invalid) wrote: Hi, It is important to understand which

Re: [CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

Hi Thomas, After emailing I saw you also provided comments in-line on the wiki. I’ll work through those and reply back on-list when I think I have addressed them. Thanks for doing that also! -MR On August 15, 2017 at 2:01:04 PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you

Re: [CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

blob id is located in that particular delegate. Not sure if you were thinking more along those lines or just a single Bloom filter for the entire composite as a whole, or both. -MR On August 15, 2017 at 4:06:56 PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote: Hi Thomas, After emailing I saw you also pro

Re: [CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote: Hi Thomas, After emailing I saw you also provided comments in-line on the wiki. I’ll work through those and reply back on-list when I think I have addressed them. Thanks for doing that also! -MR On August 15, 2017 at 2:01:04 PM, Matt Ryan (o

Re: [CompositeBlobStore] Delegate traversal algorithm

Bump. If anyone has feedback I’d love to hear it. On August 3, 2017 at 6:27:39 PM, Matt Ryan (o...@mvryan.org) wrote: Hi, I’ve been thinking the past few days about how a composite blob store might go about prioritizing the delegate blob stores for reading and writing, considering concepts

wiki access?

Hi oak-dev, How might I go about getting wiki access for my Apache username (mattvryan) and email (o...@mvryan.org)? I would like to document ideas for CompositeDataStore on the oak wiki where it would be easier to collaborate as a group. -MR

Re: Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

Hi Arek, Regarding CompositeBlobStore -- what if customer changes the storage rules in the meantime (refers also to Curation section). This will result in the new layout for writes but binaries won't be read correctly, am I right? I guess this could be resolved by nesting: CompositeBlobStore

Re: Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

Hi Arek, In the wiki there is no precise IMHO statement about write: > The overlay blob store fulfills write requests by attempting to write to each delegate in priority order. Once a write is successfully satisfied by a delegate, the result of the delegate write is returned as the result of

Re: [DiSCUSS] - highly vs rarely used data

As I've been thinking about this I wouldn't do it based on last accessed time, at least not directly. Using the example of moving infrequently used blobs to cold storage, I would use a property on the node, e.g. "archiveState=toArchive". In this case the property can be clearly tied to that

Re: Intent to backport to 1.6: OAK-6116

+1 On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Vikas Saurabh wrote: > potentially illegimate +1 to backport from my side (as I was the one > who reviewed and already +1-ed backporting on the issue itself) > > Thanks, > Vikas >

Re: [ops] Unify NodeStore/DataStore configurations by using nstab

Hi Arek, I like the idea generally. As was mentioned, some stores will require additional parameters not mentioned in the examples, e.g. S3DataStore will require an AWS access key, secret key, bucket name, etc. As these become more complex the chance for error increases, so we'd want to be sure

Composite blob store and Overlay blob store proposals

Hi oak-dev, I’ve written up some proposals on the wiki for blob stores that can reference multiple blob storage locations. Both act as a single logical blob store to Oak and can be treated as a single blob store. Both have at least two “delegate” blob stores managed by the primary blob store.

Re: Enforcing minimal test coverage

Hi, Speaking generally I think this is a good idea for Oak, so I am appreciative of the proposal. I assume we are talking about enforcement via build automation, meaning there would be a step in the build that would compute the coverage number and fail the build if the coverage number is not

Re: new name for the multiplexing node store

Likewise, the concept previously known as federated data store will now become CompositeDataStore. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Tomek Rekawek wrote: > Hello, > > so, it seems we have the consensus. I’ll rename the implementation to > CompositeNodeStore and the

Re: Enforcing minimal test coverage

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Angela Schreiber wrote: > hi julian > > no i didn't, because i don't think it makes sense to enforce a running > mongoDB for being able to build oak-core. nor does it make sense to me to > require a coverage that can only be reached

Re: [DiSCUSS] - highly vs rarely used data

Hi, With respect to Oak data stores, this is something I am hoping to support later this year after the implementation of the CompositeDataStore (which I'm still working on). First, the assumption is that there would be a working CompositeDataStore that can manage multiple data stores, and can

Re: new name for the multiplexing node store

I was wondering about this also WRT federated data store. If the intent and effect of both are the same ("both" meaning what is currently called the "multiplexing node store" and the proposed (and in-progress) "federated data store"), it seems they should use a similar naming convention at least.

Re: A federated data store

-blob-federated/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/blob/federated -MR On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at the possibility of creating a new kind of data store, let's > call it a federated data store, and wanted to

Re: A federated data store

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Davide Giannella <dav...@apache.org> wrote: > On 20/04/2017 19:30, Matt Ryan wrote: > > I misremembered above when I was describing a possible implementation. I > > was thinking we'd add a method to the delegate, but that would be added &

Re: [ops] Unify NodeStore/DataStore configurations by using nstab

Hi Arek/oak-dev, I'm curious as to the status of this. Is it being worked on? >From the perspective of an AbstractDataStoreService subclass, will the config still be passed into the "createDataStore()" method as a Map after having been read from the nstab-formatted config file?

Re: OAK-6575 - A word of caution

Hi, On September 14, 2017 at 7:05:28 AM, Alex Deparvu (a...@pfalabs.com) wrote: how to make sure this ttl will not get bumped up to a point where it becomes a real problem (1 min/5mins is probably fine, what if someone sets it to a few hours). Not to sound cold or uncaring, but IMO that’s a

Oak Threat Model (was: Re: OAK-6575 - A word of caution)

Hi, Moving the threat model discussion to a new mail thread. On September 18, 2017 at 7:15:34 AM, Davide Giannella (dav...@apache.org) wrote: On 18/09/2017 12:40, Ian Boston wrote: > can be evaluated > as part of the release process, ideally before the next stable release. I mostly do

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6685

+1 On September 20, 2017 at 7:41:08 AM, Marcel Reutegger ( mreut...@adobe.com.invalid) wrote: Hi, I'd like to backport OAK-6685 to the maintenance branches. The fix is simple and I consider the risk as very low. Regards Marcel

[CompositeDataStore] How to properly create delegate data stores?

Hi, A CompositeDataStore in practice will generally have at least two other data stores “inside” it (if there are less than two, there’s little point in using CompositeDataStore). I refer to these as “delegate” data stores or just “delegates”. In my prototype, the addition and removal of

[CompositeDataStore] Working demo exists - now to add it to Oak

Hi, For those who aren’t aware, I have a working demo of the CompositeDataStore supporting a single use case. The use case is to quickly create Oak test environments by cloning a production node store to the test instance and then using the CompositeDataStore in the test instance to reference

Re: [CompositeDataStore] How to properly create delegate data stores?

Hi Tomek, Thanks for the feedback. I hadn’t thought about it this way, so I’ll consider it further. Some concerns listed below. On October 3, 2017 at 12:35:32 AM, Tomek Rekawek (reka...@adobe.com.invalid) wrote: Hello Matt, I don’t think we should rely on the bundle activation /

[CompositeDataStore] Configuration format for delegate data stores

Hi, I’d be interested in ideas on how we should define configuration for delegate data stores for the CompositeDataStore. One idea was proposed on-list earlier in [0]. I like this idea, but it is a unified node-store/data-store configuration concept that might take a bit longer to support than

Re: start oak with file system storage

Hi Marco, I’d probably use data store classes instead (e.g. FileDataStore) and wrap them inside DataStoreBlobStore. -MR On October 5, 2017 at 7:51:58 AM, Marco Piovesana (pioves...@esteco.com) wrote: Hi all, I'm using Oak 1.6.1 with a file system storage (no migration from a previous version

Re: Oak modularisation unstable roadmap ?

Hi, Looking at the agenda for the November Oakathon [0], there’s a modularization topic, with the description “Continue/complete modularization effort”. From that I would infer that the answer to your question is: Yes, there is more modularization expected within the next month or so. Is Oak

Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0

Hi, Makes good sense to me. Cutting the next release as a major version reflects the high amount of change in dependencies that the downstream should expect. -MR On October 13, 2017 at 8:58:38 AM, Angela Schreiber ( anch...@adobe.com.invalid) wrote: hi given the fact that the m12n topic is

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6218

+1 (nonbinding) On October 10, 2017 at 9:23:26 AM, Chetan Mehrotra ( chetan.mehro...@gmail.com) wrote: +1 Chetan Mehrotra On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2017-10-10 17:16, Marcel Reutegger wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to backport OAK-6218

Re: [CompositeDataStore] Should we refactor AbstractDataStoreService and create AbstractDataStoreFactory?

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

Re: [CompositeDataStore] How to properly create delegate data stores?

/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

Re: [CompositeDataStore] How to properly create delegate data stores?

? What is the file name for each one? And how to do they associate with the FileDataStoreFactory? Thanks -MR On October 23, 2017 at 1:44:57 AM, Tomek Rekawek (reka...@adobe.com.invalid) wrote: Hi Matt, > On 20 Oct 2017, at 23:02, Matt Ryan <o...@mvryan.org> wrote: > > I think I basic

Re: [CompositeDataStore] How to properly create delegate data stores?

Hi Tomek, Thanks for the clarification. I’ve been working on applying the feedback you provided, studying CompositeNodeStore for guidance, etc. One question inline below. On October 4, 2017 at 1:22:22 AM, Tomek Rękawek (tom...@apache.org) wrote: As above, the CompositeDataStore won’t wait

Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

Re: Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

[CompositeDataStore] Should we refactor AbstractDataStoreService and create AbstractDataStoreFactory?

Hi, In another thread there’s a discussion going on regarding the implementation of CompositeDataStore and the need for a factory class in order to have multiple data stores of the same type used by the composite. I’ve been looking at how this is done by SegmentNodeStore as an example. In the

Re: [CompositeDataStore] Should we refactor AbstractDataStoreService and create AbstractDataStoreFactory?

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

Re: [CompositeDataStore] Should we refactor AbstractDataStoreService and create AbstractDataStoreFactory?

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

[CompositeDataStore] pull request to review GC changes

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

Re: [CompositeDataStore] pull request to review GC changes

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

Re: Fwd: [CompositeDataStore] pull request to review GC changes

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

Re: Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

Re: Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

Re: Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

Re: Oak Direct Binary Access pull request

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

[DISCUSS] Enabling CI for Oak cloud-based features

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.6

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.8

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",

pull request for OAK-7717

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

Re: Recommending Oak over Jackrabbit 2.x

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

Re: revision-/audit-proof archive

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

Re: oak-search module

+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

“Oak Vision” session at Oakathon?

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

Re: Azure Segment Store

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.10

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.9

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

Backporting similarity search to Oak 1.8

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.23

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

Config to disable text extraction (OAK-7996)

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.0 (take 2)

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.16 (take 2)

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.11

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

Re: Why don't we move to Git?

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.9.13

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.10

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

Re: How does oak cluster work

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

Re: How to find out if similarity search is active - without doing a search

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

Re: Oak 1.10.0 release plan

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: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.10.0

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

Re: Oak 1.10.0 release plan

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

Re: Oak 1.10.0 release plan

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.2.30

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)

Re: New Jackrabbit committer: Matt Ryan

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.14

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:

Re: Configuring Oak for direct binary access

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

[AzureDataStore] Removing dependency on outdated Azure SDK

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

Intent to backport OAK-8013

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

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8013

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

  1   2   >