I must Thomas give right. I would not like depend on osgi. >I think a pluggable persistence layer, or a pluggable authentication >module, or a pluggable log system don't mean that the whole of Jackrabbit >*requires* OSGi. Of course Jackrabbit should support OSGi, but it >shouldn't depend on it. I believe the regular (default) Jackrabbit >distributable should have integrated authentication and persistence, and >should use maybe SLF4J.
A good article for me is http://blogs.mulesoft.org/osgi-no-thanks/ >At some point we need to discuss where to start with Jackrabbit 3. I guess >the most important deliverable is an embedded (not server; that is, no >remoting) JCR 2.0 repository that uses a database as the storage backend. >This would be 'one project' as I wrote in the subject (and one jar file). I would also like the approach of one jar with the core features. On the other hand having some modules (remoting) will be a good way for me. I see also the complexity of all the modules that we now have in jackrabbit. and would like have less modules greets claus
