You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Angela Schreiber <an...@adobe.com> on 2017/04/19 12:09:39 UTC
[m12n] Looking at Document NodeStore (was: [m12] Effort to Improve
Modularisation of Oak)
hi oak-devs
michael asked about m12n effort for document nodestore:
On 12/04/17 13:56, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
[...]
>
>Is there plans to move document/rdb stores to separate modules or is
>this beyond the current scope?
>
[...]
i had a quick look this morning and got the impression that we would need
some extra effort to be able to move document/rdb stores to separate
modules. in particular it seems that we got circular dependencies between
plugins.document.* and other packages in oak-core. one of those i already
reported earlier at OAK-5656
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5656>.
while separating the document/rdb nodestores from oak-core would feel
natural to me, i am not sure how much effort we want/should to spend on
this. maybe someone familiar with document/rdb code base want to care
another look? given the re-occuring discussions we have wrt backporting
all changes of rdb-nodestore, i have the feeling that it might make sense
to allow for independent releases and backport policies for these parts of
oak.
wdyt?
kind regards
angela
Re: [m12n] Looking at Document NodeStore (was: [m12] Effort to
Improve Modularisation of Oak)
Posted by Angela Schreiber <an...@adobe.com>.
hi julian
for the sake of simplicity (and to see where the pain points would be) i
just tried to refactor all of plugins.document out of oak-core. that
already seems to require some more effort than i expected.
maybe it would make sense to at least define to long term goal and make
sure new code and improvements don't add more obstacles.
kind regards
angela
On 19/04/17 14:26, "Julian Reschke" <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 2017-04-19 14:09, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>> hi oak-devs
>>
>> michael asked about m12n effort for document nodestore:
>>
>> On 12/04/17 13:56, "Michael Dürig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Is there plans to move document/rdb stores to separate modules or is
>>> this beyond the current scope?
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> i had a quick look this morning and got the impression that we would
>>need
>> some extra effort to be able to move document/rdb stores to separate
>> modules. in particular it seems that we got circular dependencies
>>between
>> plugins.document.* and other packages in oak-core. one of those i
>>already
>> reported earlier at OAK-5656
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5656>.
>>
>> while separating the document/rdb nodestores from oak-core would feel
>> natural to me, i am not sure how much effort we want/should to spend on
>> this. maybe someone familiar with document/rdb code base want to care
>> another look? given the re-occuring discussions we have wrt backporting
>> all changes of rdb-nodestore, i have the feeling that it might make
>>sense
>> to allow for independent releases and backport policies for these parts
>>of
>> oak.
>>
>> wdyt?
>> ...
>
>Depends on what do you want to separate from what.
>
>Right now, we treat the DocumentStore API as something internal; if
>individual implementations of it (Mongo, RDB) were to become
>independant, we'd have to do some work here. Also, we have Mongo and RDB
>specific special cases in (or actually close to) generic code, such as
>garbage collectors.
>
>It's a good long-term goal, but it'll require a significant amount of
>work.
>
>Best regards, Julian
Re: [m12n] Looking at Document NodeStore (was: [m12] Effort to
Improve Modularisation of Oak)
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-04-19 14:09, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> hi oak-devs
>
> michael asked about m12n effort for document nodestore:
>
> On 12/04/17 13:56, "Michael Drig" <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> Is there plans to move document/rdb stores to separate modules or is
>> this beyond the current scope?
>>
> [...]
>
> i had a quick look this morning and got the impression that we would need
> some extra effort to be able to move document/rdb stores to separate
> modules. in particular it seems that we got circular dependencies between
> plugins.document.* and other packages in oak-core. one of those i already
> reported earlier at OAK-5656
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5656>.
>
> while separating the document/rdb nodestores from oak-core would feel
> natural to me, i am not sure how much effort we want/should to spend on
> this. maybe someone familiar with document/rdb code base want to care
> another look? given the re-occuring discussions we have wrt backporting
> all changes of rdb-nodestore, i have the feeling that it might make sense
> to allow for independent releases and backport policies for these parts of
> oak.
>
> wdyt?
> ...
Depends on what do you want to separate from what.
Right now, we treat the DocumentStore API as something internal; if
individual implementations of it (Mongo, RDB) were to become
independant, we'd have to do some work here. Also, we have Mongo and RDB
specific special cases in (or actually close to) generic code, such as
garbage collectors.
It's a good long-term goal, but it'll require a significant amount of work.
Best regards, Julian
Re: [m12n] Looking at Document NodeStore (was: [m12] Effort to
Improve Modularisation of Oak)
Posted by Marcel Reutegger <mr...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
On 19/04/17 14:09, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> i had a quick look this morning and got the impression that we would need
> some extra effort to be able to move document/rdb stores to separate
> modules. in particular it seems that we got circular dependencies between
> plugins.document.* and other packages in oak-core. one of those i already
> reported earlier at OAK-5656
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5656>.
I'm in favour of moving the document store based implementations to a
separate bundle, but I didn't look at the details and what's required to
achieve this.
> while separating the document/rdb nodestores from oak-core would feel
> natural to me, i am not sure how much effort we want/should to spend on
> this. maybe someone familiar with document/rdb code base want to care
> another look? given the re-occuring discussions we have wrt backporting
> all changes of rdb-nodestore, i have the feeling that it might make sense
> to allow for independent releases and backport policies for these parts of
> oak.
Agreed, it is probably easier if someone with more insight into the code
tries to separate the document node store from oak-core.
Regards
Marcel