Hi,
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do all these projects solely rely on the JCR API?
Some of them have dependencies to other commons projects and/or to
external components. For example jcr-rmi depends on jcr-commons and
slf4j.
> They shouldn't be dependent on anything from core (or the deployment
> packages + the SPI stuff), because - as the core already depends on
> some of them, eg. jcr-commons - we would have circular dependencies.
There are optional dependencies to jackrabbit-api and jackrabbit-core
from some of the proposed commons components. For example jcr-rmi has
an optional dependency to jackrabbit-api so it's able to expose the
extra methods when the extra API interfaces are available. Similarly,
jcr-servlet has an optional dependency to jackrabbit-core so it can be
used to instantiate a Jackrabbit repository when all the required
libraries are available.
I don't see such optional dependencies as troublesome as they don't
affect downstream projects (i.e. they are not transitive) and are only
used for extra functionality when the client explicitly asks for it.
Also, many of the components have test dependencies to
jackrabbit-core, but since those are also non-transitive I don't see
any problems with that.
> Not sure if we should create more mailing lists, as many mailing lists
> make it difficult for beginners to get a start ("which one shall I
> subscribe to for a quick question?"). Maybe we can re-use the existing
> ones and work with the mentioned "[commons-rmi]" prefix there.
Yeah, we could do that.
Using separate mailing list might encourage more cooperation from
other JCR implementation projects as they wouldn't need to filter out
all the Jackrabbit-specific stuff.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
