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 Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> on 2012/03/29 17:22:30 UTC
Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Hi all,
Just checked out oak and I notice there are o.a.j.mk packages in both the oak-core and the oak-mk projects. I think this is fundamentally wrong and may even lead to split packages.
In addition it really leads to confusion as expressed in an early statement by Tom: If I have a class, how do I find the containing project ? I would assume the class's package would hint at that.
Having mk packages in both the core and mk projects makes it actually hard to find mk classes.
So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
Regards
Felix
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
Am 30.03.2012 um 07:26 schrieb Michael Dürig:
>
>
> On 30.3.12 9:42, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>> hi felix
>>
>> IMO your comment wasn't noise at all.
My comment about mk package being spread in two projects was in fact noise, since this is already part of some issue discussion pointed out by Jukka.
The rest of my original message, I still don't consider noise ;-)
>> while we did reach
>> some consensus that we want to have a separate oak-api
>> we still have some disagreement on what the oak-api should
>> actually be abstraction wise and ultimately look like.
>>
>> my interpretation of the current discussion is as follows:
>>
>> variant 1:
>> oak-api is basically the same as mk-api but just adds some
>> validation-magic. the tree exposed by oak-api upon creation
>> of a JCR session contains the complete JCR repository.
>> -> oak-core and oak-mk should in this scenario be located
>> in the same module as the basically expose the same
>> level of abstraction.
>>
>> variant 2:
>> oak-api is a separate API and abstraction layer on top of
>> the mk-API. mk-API just being the storage that doesn't have
>> any knowlege of workspaces, items, node types. the oak-API
>> in this variant however, was aware of the different types.
>> the validation in oak-api implementation could rely on it's
>> knowledge of workspaces, repository-unique data (versions,
>> node types, namespace) and different types of (jcr) items.
>> -> oak-core and oak-mk are completely different components
>> and therefore should be separate modules.
>>
>> we are still this discussing this... but your confusion on
>> the current layout, i my opinion originates from this
>> not yet being decided.
>
> I think the original idea was more like variant 2. See whiteboard
> snapshot at the bottom of
> http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/OakComponentStructure. However name
> space mapping and most of node type stuff was though to go into oak-jcr.
>
> AFAIR we didn't discuss workspaces then but from that picture it seems
> logical to me that workspace management should also go into oak-core.
Agreed. In fact, IIRC MK is just a relatively dumb tree storage. The live of it comes from oak-core and oak-jcr brings this into the actual JCR API world.
Regards
Felix
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>>
>> that's my view on how the current layout actually reflects
>> the level of discussion and disagreement. we will have that
>> sorted out over the next couple of weeks.
>>
>> kind regards
>> angela
>>
>> On 3/29/12 5:39 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Ok, thanks and sorry for the noise, then.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> Am 29.03.2012 um 11:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix
>>>> Meschberger<fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>>>>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>>
>>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 30.3.12 9:42, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> hi felix
>
> IMO your comment wasn't noise at all. while we did reach
> some consensus that we want to have a separate oak-api
> we still have some disagreement on what the oak-api should
> actually be abstraction wise and ultimately look like.
>
> my interpretation of the current discussion is as follows:
>
> variant 1:
> oak-api is basically the same as mk-api but just adds some
> validation-magic. the tree exposed by oak-api upon creation
> of a JCR session contains the complete JCR repository.
> -> oak-core and oak-mk should in this scenario be located
> in the same module as the basically expose the same
> level of abstraction.
>
> variant 2:
> oak-api is a separate API and abstraction layer on top of
> the mk-API. mk-API just being the storage that doesn't have
> any knowlege of workspaces, items, node types. the oak-API
> in this variant however, was aware of the different types.
> the validation in oak-api implementation could rely on it's
> knowledge of workspaces, repository-unique data (versions,
> node types, namespace) and different types of (jcr) items.
> -> oak-core and oak-mk are completely different components
> and therefore should be separate modules.
>
> we are still this discussing this... but your confusion on
> the current layout, i my opinion originates from this
> not yet being decided.
I think the original idea was more like variant 2. See whiteboard
snapshot at the bottom of
http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/OakComponentStructure. However name
space mapping and most of node type stuff was though to go into oak-jcr.
AFAIR we didn't discuss workspaces then but from that picture it seems
logical to me that workspace management should also go into oak-core.
Michael
>
> that's my view on how the current layout actually reflects
> the level of discussion and disagreement. we will have that
> sorted out over the next couple of weeks.
>
> kind regards
> angela
>
> On 3/29/12 5:39 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Ok, thanks and sorry for the noise, then.
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 29.03.2012 um 11:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix
>>> Meschberger<fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>>>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Angela Schreiber <an...@adobe.com>.
hi felix
IMO your comment wasn't noise at all. while we did reach
some consensus that we want to have a separate oak-api
we still have some disagreement on what the oak-api should
actually be abstraction wise and ultimately look like.
my interpretation of the current discussion is as follows:
variant 1:
oak-api is basically the same as mk-api but just adds some
validation-magic. the tree exposed by oak-api upon creation
of a JCR session contains the complete JCR repository.
-> oak-core and oak-mk should in this scenario be located
in the same module as the basically expose the same
level of abstraction.
variant 2:
oak-api is a separate API and abstraction layer on top of
the mk-API. mk-API just being the storage that doesn't have
any knowlege of workspaces, items, node types. the oak-API
in this variant however, was aware of the different types.
the validation in oak-api implementation could rely on it's
knowledge of workspaces, repository-unique data (versions,
node types, namespace) and different types of (jcr) items.
-> oak-core and oak-mk are completely different components
and therefore should be separate modules.
we are still this discussing this... but your confusion on
the current layout, i my opinion originates from this
not yet being decided.
that's my view on how the current layout actually reflects
the level of discussion and disagreement. we will have that
sorted out over the next couple of weeks.
kind regards
angela
On 3/29/12 5:39 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> Ok, thanks and sorry for the noise, then.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 29.03.2012 um 11:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix Meschberger<fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
Ok, thanks and sorry for the noise, then.
Regards
Felix
Am 29.03.2012 um 11:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>
> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
I now created OAK-57 [1] to track this. As a first step I removed the empty MK packages.
I would think the rest should be moved out of oak-core in time for the 0.2 release.
Thank you very much.
Regards
Felix
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-57
Am 29.03.2012 um 17:26 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
>> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
>
> Yes, that's the idea [1].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
Re: Location of o.a.j.mk packages
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> So I suggest we either move the mk packages to the mk project or
> rename the mk packages in core to oak instead.
Yes, that's the idea [1].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-24?focusedCommentId=13231255&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13231255
BR,
Jukka Zitting