Hi, Jukka Zitting schrieb: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This would support the long term goal of getting rid of the separate >>> transient space implementations in core and jcr2spi, as it would be >>> easier for core to reuse stuff from jcr2spi. >> if this is the aim of the whole execise then i don't see >> why we have to do this right now... i don't know of any >> plans to have core reusing jcr2spi stuff. > > My main aim is to simplify the deployment of SPI connectors like > spi2dav (see the related thread on remoting and JCR-RMI). Having > jcr2spi included in spi-commons would remove one extra dependency from > client projects and would allow spi2dav to include a > javax.jcr.RepositoryFactory implementation.
Well, honestly. The problem is not the dependency per-se but lack of documentation thereof ! I tend to agree with Angela that we should not merge projects/libraries just to make it "easier" for one use case... I think keeping the thing architecturally clean is way better -- and easier to use in the long term. Regards Felix > >> jcr2spi currently is a half-way jsr 283 implementation as >> we are short of resources and fixing access control, >> rentention management, shareable nodes etc. for the >> jcr2spi doesn't have any prio. i don't see how you want >> to merge that with the core. > > I have no immediate needs on that front in mind. But having the > jcr2spi code included in spi-commons will make it easier to move > forward on this front in the future if or when we have more resources > for that. > >> and last but not least: >> i don't see any reason why we have to discuss this >> right now. michi is on vacation and i'm kind of busy >> with the next CQ release... honestly i don't have leisure >> time to think about things that i consider not to be >> crucial for the overall functionality. >> >> can we please postpone this discussion? > > No problem, but I'd like to see a resolution (either way) on this > before Jackrabbit 2.0 is final. > > I brought this up now since I ran into this issue when looking at ways > to simplify DAVex clients, which will be fairly important especially > if we decide to drop JCR-RMI. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
