Hi, 2016-10-04 15:21 GMT+02:00 Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>: > On 2016-10-04 08:43, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: >> >> <<The topic is of concern to both projects hence the cross posting >> >> >> Hi Team, >> >> Sometime back we discussed the requirement for oak:Resource as a non >> referenceable replacement for nt:resource (OAk-4567). This topic was >> also discussed on DL [1] and at that time it was decided that changing >> the defaults (making nt:resource non referenceable ) is not possible >> and hence applications should switch to other nodetypes while creating >> nt:file instance. >> >> Towards that end I started discussion on Sling side as part of >> SLING-6090. See [2] for discussion thread. However team there is of >> the view that this would require changes in many places and wants us >> to think again about changing the defaults. >> >> So question here is >> >> === >> Can we change the defaults for nt:resource nodetype to be non >> referenceable. This has also been proposed in JCR 2.0. JR2 and Oak >> though use the nodetype definition from JCR 1.0 >> === >> >> To reiterate I am just aiming for a solution here which enables a user >> to use a more optimum nodetype and get best performance out of >> underlying repository. >> >> Hopefully we can converge on some agreement here :) >> ... > > > (I may have said this before...) -- if the issue we want to solve is that > referenceable nodes in Oak are more expensive than they used to be in > Jackrabbit, maybe the right thing to do is to make them less expensive? > > I still do not understand, why we do not delegate the UUID generation/lookup > to the persistence instead of insisting it to be just like any other > property index...
If you are going through hell, keep going. Winston S. Churchill > Best regards, Julian
