On 5/9/08, Esteban Franqueiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's a good idea, as long as we don't have to keep those interfaces > there for > backcompatibility, and we can drop them quickly. yes, that was the idea. alternatively we could also create an interim project module, jackrabbit-jsr283-api and drop that later. this way, we don't need to "clutter" the jackrabbit-api.
-- toby > Regards, > > Esteban Franqueiro > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ________________________________ > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Tobias Bocanegra > Enviado el: jue 08/05/2008 16:48 > Para: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org > Asunto: extending the jackrabbit-api > > > > > hi, > as the implementation of the new features for jsr283 have started, i > suggest to put the new jsr283 interfaces to jackrabbit-api instead to > core (where possible). this way, we can already figure out > inter-module dependency issues and people can start using experimental > features through an API than rather through casting objects to core > interfaces. > > suggestion: use 'org.apache.jackrabbit.api.jsr283' as base package for > the new jsr283 interfaces and classes. > > for example, use > org.apache.jackrabbit.api.jsr283.nodetype.NodeDefinitionTemplate > for the future javax.jcr.nodetype.NodeDefinitionTemplate > > once jcr2.0 is released, we can either extend them from the 'real' > interfaces or just drop them. in any case it might make sense to mark > them as deprecated from start. > > WDYT? > > -- > regards, toby > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have > received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and > then delete it. >
