Hi, IIUC There are 2 patterns: 1 Emitting a short lived signed URL as per the AWS CloudFront recommended method of serving private content.
2 An Oak internal AdapterFactory/AdapterManager pattern to avoid Oak API changes. Would you be willing state your concerns for each one separately ? Best Regards Ian On 4 September 2017 at 15:43, Francesco Mari <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm in no position to veto the POC and I'm not willing to. I am well > aware of the importance of this feature. I expressed my concerns and > so did others. As the subject of this thread clearly stated, I only > wanted to point out that I had the feeling that we had a "reboot" of > the conversation for no good reason, with the unpleasant side effect > of proposing once again a pattern that received a lot of criticism in > the past. > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ...I feel > >> that Oak is weaker without the ability to offload bulk data streaming to > >> infrastructure designed for that purpose.... > > > > FWIW as an Oak user I share that feeling, IMO the use cases described > > at https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/JCR%20Binary%20Usecase are > > becoming more and more important. > > > > Not being a committer I don't really care about the internals, but > > please do not "throw the baby out with the bath water" if the > > internals need to change. > > > > -Bertrand >
