Hi,
+1 from my side for the broad contours as proposed above.
Thanks
Amit
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Based on the feedback so far below is revised proposal
>
> 1. Define a new Adaptable interface in 'org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.api'
>
> public interface Adaptable {
>
> /**
> * Adapts the binary to another type
> *
> * @param <AdapterType> The generic type to which this type is adapted
> * to
> * @param type The Class object of the target type
> * @return The adapter target or <code>null</code> if the type cannot
> * adapt to the requested type
> */
> <AdapterType> AdapterType adaptTo(Class<AdapterType> type);
> }
>
> 2. Have the binary implementation in Oak implement Adaptable
> 3. Have a minimal implementation in Oak on line of Sling Adaptor support
> [1]
>
> For current usecase we would provide an adaptation to SignedBinary
>
> public interface SignedBinary {
>
> URI getUri()
> }
>
> Chetan Mehrotra
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/sling/tree/trunk/bundles/api/
> src/main/java/org/apache/sling/api/adapter
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
> <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hence, why not simply use binaryProp instanceof SignedBinary ?
> >
> > As Julian mentioned it would make it tricky to support multiple
> > extensions with various permutations. Having adapter support for
> > simplify the implementation
> >
> >> No client should be issued a signed url that could be used in the
> distant
> >> (relatively) future bypassing fresh ACL constraints saved to Oak.
> >
> > Fair point. Then lets drop the ttl paramater
> >
> > Chetan Mehrotra
>
