Hi,
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 07:18 -0600, Matt Ryan wrote:
> I was wondering about this also WRT federated data store. If the
> intent
> and effect of both are the same ("both" meaning what is currently
> called
> the "multiplexing node store" and the proposed (and in-progress)
> "federated
> data store"), it seems they should use a similar naming convention at
> least.
>
> WDYT? Does that make it more confusing or less confusing?
I think the high-level intent is the same for both - compose a single
{Data,Node}Store out of multiple sub-stores.
The mechanisms might be different though, as the the NodeStore is
hierarchical in nature, while the BlobStore blob ids are opaque.
Also I still maintain :-) that federated blob stores will work well
individually as they have no overall hierarchy to respect, while the
multiplexed node stores will have to be composed to create a meaningful
image.
Robert
>
> -MR
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Julian Sedding <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tomek
> >
> > In all related discussions the term "mount" appears a lot. So why
> > not
> > Mounting NodeStore? The module could be "oak-store-mount".
> >
> > Regards
> > Julian
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tomek Rekawek <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hello oak-dev,
> > >
> > > the multiplexing node store has been recently extracted from the
> >
> > oak-core into a separate module and I’ve used it as an opportunity
> > to
> > rename the thing. The name I suggested is Federated Node Store.
> > Robert
> > doesn’t agree it’s the right name, mostly because the “partial”
> > node
> > stores, creating the combined (multiplexing / federated) one, are
> > not
> > usable on their own and stores only a part of the overall
> > repository
> > content.
> > >
> > > Our arguments in their full lengths can be found in the OAK-6136
> > > (last
> >
> > 3-4 comments), so there’s no need to repeat them here. We wanted to
> > ask you
> > for opinion about the name. We kind of agree that the
> > “multiplexing” is not
> > the best choice - can you suggest something else or maybe you think
> > that
> > “federated” is good enough?
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tomek
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com
> > > [email protected]
> > >
