On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Thomas Müller <thomas.muel...@day.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure if this will help more than it will complicate things. > Disadvantages: > > - Isn't almost every class at in o.a.j.core at least somewhat session related? > > - If you move classes to other packages, you will have to make many > method public.
i share tomas's concerns. > > Instead of moving session related classes to a separate package, what > about moving unrelated classes to different packages? For example > TestContentLoader (>test), RepositoryCopier (>utilities), > SearchManager (>search), NodeTypeInstanceHandler (>nodetype), > RepositoryChecker (>persistence), UserPerWorkspaceSecurityManager > (>security), DefaultSecurityManager (>security), ItemValidator > (>nodetype). +1 cheers stefan > > Regards, > Thomas > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As a part of my work on JCR-890, I'm planning to move most of the >> session-related classes from o.a.j.core to a new o.a.j.core.session >> package. This will make it easier to review and control related >> dependencies and code paths, and to ultimately guard them against >> access from concurrent threads. >> >> As the first step I'm simply moving the relevant classes and making >> the minor dependency changes where needed, so the functional risk >> should be low. However, the moves will likely invalidate many other >> pending jackrabbit-core changes, so please let me know if you have >> pending changes that I should wait for before I move these classes. >> Unless there's a need to wait, I'm planning to commit the changes in >> the afternoon today. >> >> BR, >> >> Jukka Zitting >> >
