Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Provide new implementation of fcrepo-kernel-api that interacts with OCFL persistence
  2. Interactions with OCFL persistence should initially take advantage of the JHU OCFL client
  3. For pre-existing OCFL storage hierarchies, Fedora-imposes the following constraint:
    1. The OCFL storage hierarchy must have a single, consistent "ocfl_layout" (i.e. the storage path mapping algorithm must be determinant)
  4. Many members: performance should improve significantly since list of members will be supplied by a database index (which should support a degree of in-memory caching)
  5. Deleting tombstone of OCFL Object purges the Object

  6. Deleting tombstone of "constituent part" is not supported (405)

Prototyping proposal

  1. Expose JHU OCFL client functionality with minimal HTTP endpoints
    1. Such an endpoint should implement minimal LDP interactions
  2. Use HTTP over OCFL to test:
    1. Performance bottlenecks
    2. Scale viability (e.g. NLM migration)
    3. User expectations, ergonomics

...

  1. Proposal: no change to the Fedora API spec in 6
  2. We will either:
    1. align code with the (as-yet-to-be-ratified) side-car specification
    2. leave HTTP API unchanged while introducing the possibility of auto-versioning on transaction completion
  3. Potentially store updates within a transaction in a "txn/" directory at the sibling-level with OCFL version directories
  4. Support actions on multiple OCFL objects within a single transaction
  5. Deleting tombstone of OCFL Object purges the Object

  6. Deleting tombstone of "constituent part" is not supported (405)

Raw notes

  1. General VA Beach Meeting notes
  2. Design summary notes
  3. Migration notes
  4. Object modeling notes
  5. Versioning notes
  6. Fixity notes
  7. Bulk ingest notes
  8. Query service notes