Difference between revisions of "Talk:SMILA/Component Requirements/Record Binary Storage Requirements"

Revision as of 08:24, 20 October 2008

Tom: I wouldnt use the smila specific 'record' and 'attachment' name parts because 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 would overwrite the BLOB of another client by accidentally 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?)

Tom:

> namespace parameter

I had that different in mind, namely when requesting the service, the client would pass in that info. that way we could have diff. BinStoreService instances and the client wouldnt have to pass in that info each time.

> 6. The client component must use different instances of the binary store fully transparently

@Igor: could you make this requirement more precise?

Juergen.schumacher.empolis.com Ok. I suppose, creating one BinStorage service per "namespace" would be fine, too. So the API could be:

void store(String id, InputStream stream);
void store(String id, byte[] blob)
byte[] fetchAsByte(String id)
InputStream fetchAsStream(String id)
void remove(String id)
int fetchSize(String id)