[Oak origin/trunk] Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix - Build # 932 - Still Failing

2016-06-02 Thread Apache Jenkins Server
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Apache Jackrabbit Oak matrix (build #932) Status: Still Failing Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Jackrabbit%20Oak%20matrix/932/ to view the results. Changes: [alexparvulescu] OAK-4423 Possible overflow in checkpoint creat

Re: JCR Binary Usecase - UC7 - Random write access in binaries

2016-06-02 Thread Jukka Zitting
Hi, See https://java.net/jira/browse/JSR_283-19 for more background on the decision to not have this feature in JCR 2.0. That said, I remember this feature request coming up every now and then, and we did for example design handling binary values in the segment store in a way that would allow ran

Re: JCR Binary Usecase - UC7 - Random write access in binaries

2016-06-02 Thread Michael Marth
> >...but the limitation is also present in the JCR API, right? yes, that is my understanding

Re: JCR Binary Usecase - UC7 - Random write access in binaries

2016-06-02 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2016-06-02 15:40, Michael Marth wrote: Hi Julian, While WebDAV would be really preferable, I take your word that WebDAV as a protocol is not possible (I believe you know a thing or two about WebDAV). However, the transport protocol is only one aspect. For the sake of the argument assume a

Re: JCR Binary Usecase - UC7 - Random write access in binaries

2016-06-02 Thread Michael Marth
Hi Julian, While WebDAV would be really preferable, I take your word that WebDAV as a protocol is not possible (I believe you know a thing or two about WebDAV). However, the transport protocol is only one aspect. For the sake of the argument assume a custom protocol for transport. What is still

Re: Oak 1.5.3 release plan

2016-06-02 Thread Robert Munteanu
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 09:18 +0100, Davide Giannella wrote: > Hello team, > > I'm planning to cut Oak 1.5.3 on Monday 23rd of May. > > There's currently one unassigned blocker for the release. If it is > not a > real blocker please change the priority accordingly otherwise I'm for > skipping this