Hi,
I think the discussion did move forward between the various issues but
this might have been obfuscated because several topics where discussed
at the same time. To me the two main topics touched exposure of an URI
to binaries and an API to expose this from Oak.
In the meanwhile I just noted that Ian replied along the same lines
already. I will follow up there re. these separate concerns.
Michael
On 04.09.17 16:43, Francesco Mari 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
