[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13605186#comment-13605186
]
Thomas Mueller commented on JCR-3534:
-------------------------------------
> I would prefer the simpler return of "null" for the not-found case instead of
> the ItemNotFoundException
I agree.
> leaky abstraction that may come back to haunt us for example if someone who
> doesn't realize the security implications
I think what Felix described is a valid use case. If there are better ways to
solve the problem, that would be great, but I also currently don't see other
solutions that would work well.
> adjust the deployment configuration if you want to make those repositories
> share data more intimately
Could you provide more details? How could you reference a binary stored in one
repository in the other repository, if the repositories are not running in the
same process?
> the implementation may well be something like hash(revision + path) that
> can't be reversed for use in something like getValueByContentId().
This is an idea that is new to me, could you tell us more about it? I believe
we can and should support getValueByContentId() in Oak in the same way as in
Jackrabbit 2.x. I don't see a reason to use hash(revision + path).
> Add JackrabbitSession.getValueByContentId method
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-3534
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3534
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: jackrabbit-api, jackrabbit-core
> Affects Versions: 2.6
> Reporter: Felix Meschberger
> Attachments: JCR-3534.patch
>
>
> we have a couple of use cases, where we would like to leverage the global
> data store to prevent sending around and copying around large binary data
> unnecessarily: We have two separate Jackrabbit instances configured to use
> the same DataStore (for the sake of this discussion assume we have the
> problems of concurrent access and garbage collection under control). When
> sending content from one instance to the other instance we don't want to send
> potentially large binary data (e.g. video files) if not needed.
> The idea is for the sender to just send the content identity from
> JackrabbitValue.getContentIdentity(). The receiver would then check whether
> the such content already exists and would reuse if so:
> String ci = contentIdentity_from_sender;
> try {
> Value v = session.getValueByContentIdentity(ci);
> Property p = targetNode.setProperty(propName, v);
> } catch (ItemNotFoundException ie) {
> // unknown or invalid content Identity
> } catch (RepositoryException re) {
> // some other exception
> }
> Thus the proposed JackrabbitSession.getValueByContentIdentity(String) method
> would allow for round tripping the JackrabbitValue.getContentIdentity()
> preventing superfluous binary data copying and moving.
> See also the dev@ thread
> http://jackrabbit.markmail.org/thread/gedk5jsrp6offkhi
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
