directly we
could have a number of them. For example, multiple S3DataStore objects,
each with a different bucket for different purposes. But I'm not sure if
that limitation on service objects really exists.
Thoughts?
[0] -
https://github.com/mattvryan/jackrabbit-oak/tree/federated-data-store/oak
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Davide Giannella 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
> to
> > the DataStore
a node property, a node
> > property value, or other items, or a combination of items. In my
> thinking
> > these are defined in configuration so the federated data store would know
> > how to select which data store is used to store which binary.
>
> This would need some mor
, or a combination of items. In my thinking
> these are defined in configuration so the federated data store would know
> how to select which data store is used to store which binary.
This would need some more details. The way a binary gets written using
the JCR API is
1. Code create a Binar
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 to
> the DataStore interface, obviously (not BlobStore or
> GarbageCollectibleBlobStore). Likewise, the
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
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 everyone thinks
about this.
The basic idea is that the federated data store would allow for more than
one data store to be configured for an Oak instance. Oak