[jira] [Commented] (JCRVLT-199) Allow mapping some nt:resource nodes to oak:Resource

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
Report Content as Inappropriate

[jira] [Commented] (JCRVLT-199) Allow mapping some nt:resource nodes to oak:Resource

JIRA jira@apache.org

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-199?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16109041#comment-16109041 ]

Robert Munteanu commented on JCRVLT-199:

{quote}i think the mount could be used for other things, like storing the versions in a different persistence layer. then you also will have to deal with similar problems. {quote}

Maybe, but not for the foreseeable future ... we want /libs and /apps to be static and locked down.

{quote}in any case, i'm more worried about the consumers of a mounted space, when the nodes are no longer nt:resource. or the workflows no longer version able. {quote}

oak:Resource was designed for such a scenario and should be a drop-in replacement - see OAK-4567 . As for workflows and other resources, we will use the following model:

* /libs for application - e.g. AEM
* /apps for integrations
* /conf for runtime changes/modifications

So any change to an OOTB workflow which is found in /libs will be reflected in /conf.

> Allow mapping some nt:resource nodes to oak:Resource
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: JCRVLT-199
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-199
>             Project: Jackrabbit FileVault
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Packaging
>            Reporter: Robert Munteanu
> In a composite setup we don't support referenceable nodes in mounts. Reality is though that for a typical Sling-based setup there will be lots of nt:resource nodes in /libs and /apps, and that's were we expect to see mounts. Since nt:resource is referenceable any mount-time sanity check will fail ( see OAK-6505 ) .
> Rather than force adaption of all content packages that write in /libs and /apps to use oak:Resource, I would rather suggest a configuration to transparently map nt:resource nodes to oak:Resource ones.
> I did not dig into the code yet but I would like to hear what others think about this idea before going further. [~tripod] ?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA