hi jukka as stated in OAK-1434 i didn't get rid of the circular dependency that your proposal would cause; namely because of the KernelNodeStore test cases and on test fixture.
maybe you want to take a closer look to see if you want to resolve that TODO as the blob base classes and interfaces are now in a separate module. IMO that make sense but if you wanted to move them into oak-core i am fine as well. please let me know once you are done... then i will take over again and verify if there is something else that should be done IMO for the cleanup. thanks angela On 18/02/14 15:20, "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com> >wrote: >> variant b: >> only move the json and utility related code to oak-commons but create >> a new dedicated module for the blob store related code. while this would >> look more natural to me, i know that adding new module has been quite >> controversial in the past. > >I'd put the BlobStore interface and supporting code like >AbstractBlobStore to a new o.a.j.oak.spi.blob package where it would >be a more natural dependency to all the non-MK implementations. > >Doing so would require an oak-core dependency in oak-mk, but that >should be fine if we can break the implementation dependency from >oak-core to oak-mk. > >BR, > >Jukka Zitting
