I think the biggest challenge with having multiple projects is that when people find it confusing it hurts market adoption. JCR has not taken off yet, and it really should have, because it's a superior concept to competitor technologies like CMIS for example. If one technology is the core and the other technology is clearly "marketed" (to use the term loosely) as a layer "on top" of the core that would clarify things. But as it is now, newcomers can easily get confused about why there are two JCR implementations floating around, and just decide to go pure RDBMS or Mongo rather than risking the complexities of deciphering the JCR learning curve.
Best regards, Clay Ferguson [email protected] On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...From this POV I think we can dismiss the board's concerns as Oak is an > > evolution of Jackrabbit and will eventually replace it in one way or > > another. They are clearly not disjoint.... > > To clarify, from the board's point of view what's important is the > community. > > If Oak and Jackrabbit are clearly managed by the same community it's > fine to have both under a single PMC. > > On the other hand if a community emerges to continue to work on > Jackrabbit in the longer term (which I assume the people currently > working on Oak are doing less and less) it might make sense to split > the PMCs. > > -Bertrand >
