On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 14:37 +0100, Alex Deparvu wrote: > Hi, > > I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the > wrong > direction wrt. the modularization effort. > > Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency > optional, but > I'm not convinced you won't have another bundle pulling in the > composite > dependency anyway.
Making the dependency optional would complicate the component. There are a number of components that perform initialization work and depend on the MountInfoProvider to know whether they should write data in a composite-friendly setup. AN example are the index-related classes. Initialising those without a MountInfoProvider or with a 'default' MountInfoProvider opens up the door to data being incorrectly handled for a short window of time. I think we should keep the dependency required. Thanks, Robert > > > best, > alex > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:04 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > > > > > 1. Move the service to oak-core. > > > > > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments > > > > > > > > > > > > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less > > > > > > bundle > > > > > > ). > > > > > > If we > > > > > > go with 2, we split the logic from the oak-store-composite > > > > > > bundle > > > > > > and > > > > > > add more stuff on top of oak-core. > > > > > > > > > > 1 means simpler deployment and more stuff in oak-core, but > > > > > the > > > > > MountInfoProvider is required for composite and non-composite > > > > > stores. > > > > > Having it in (experimental) module oak-store-composite feels > > > > > strange. > > > > > > > > Why do you consider oak-store-composite experimental? It's not > > > > documented very well unfortunately, but it's as well-tested as > > > > any > > > > other component in Oak from my point of view. > > > > > > AFAIR Oak's documentation says it's "experimental". The composite > > > ns > > > page says > > > it's work-in-progress – outdated documentation? > > > > That's a good point. I've updated the docs to remove the > > information > > about the compositens being work-in-progress, just the > > documentation is > > :-) > > > > Robert > >
