Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:SMILA/Component Requirements/Record Binary Storage Requirements"
(New page: i'd wouldnt use the smila specific 'record' and 'attachment' name parts as all in/out arguments are generic.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
i'd wouldnt use the smila specific 'record' and 'attachment' name parts as all in/out arguments are generic. | i'd wouldnt use the smila specific 'record' and 'attachment' name parts as all in/out arguments are generic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Juergen.schumacher.empolis.com|Juergen.schumacher.empolis.com]] Yes, indeed. There is nothing record-specific in the arguments so we do not need to talk about records and attachments. But I wonder if it would make sense to add another parameter to be able to ensure that different clients that use BinStorage for difference purposes do not have ID collisions. Otherwise one client woudl overwrite the BLOB of another client by accidently using the same ID. So we could have: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <source lang="java"> | ||
| + | void store(String namespace, String id, InputStream stream); | ||
| + | void store(String namespace, String id, byte[] blob) | ||
| + | byte[] fetchAsByte(String namespace, String id) | ||
| + | InputStream fetchAsStream(String namespace, String id) | ||
| + | void remove(String namespace, String id) | ||
| + | int fetchSize(String namespace, String id) | ||
| + | </source> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Alternatively we could require that IDs are not unstructured strings but something like "URIs" (maybe even javax.xml.namespace.QName instead of java.lang.String?) | ||
Revision as of 08:43, 14 October 2008
i'd wouldnt use the smila specific 'record' and 'attachment' name parts as all in/out arguments are generic.
Juergen.schumacher.empolis.com Yes, indeed. There is nothing record-specific in the arguments so we do not need to talk about records and attachments. But I wonder if it would make sense to add another parameter to be able to ensure that different clients that use BinStorage for difference purposes do not have ID collisions. Otherwise one client woudl overwrite the BLOB of another client by accidently using the same ID. So we could have:
void store(String namespace, String id, InputStream stream); void store(String namespace, String id, byte[] blob) byte[] fetchAsByte(String namespace, String id) InputStream fetchAsStream(String namespace, String id) void remove(String namespace, String id) int fetchSize(String namespace, String id)
Alternatively we could require that IDs are not unstructured strings but something like "URIs" (maybe even javax.xml.namespace.QName instead of java.lang.String?)