2011/11/23 Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com>: > On 23.11.11 12:57, "Vidar Ramdal" <vidar.ram...@webstep.no> wrote: >>2011/11/23 Tobias Bocanegra <tri...@adobe.com>: >>> I would rather put effort in creating connectors in jackrabbit. So >>> having a LDAP, noSQL, etc. mapped into JCR brings much more value and >>> having them on the resource level. >> >>Out of curiosity, for what reasons? > > Because all the infrastructure level things like ACLs (as in this > discussion) won't have to be reinvented. The Sling resource API would > evolve and become more complicated - and loose it's original purpose of a > simple read oriented API, simpler than JCR in comparison. But not a > standard. > > One of the goals of JCR was to provide unified access to data silos ;-) It > might be a bit more work to implement JCR API parts (though the Jackrabbit > and jcr-commons parts help a lot), but in the overall picture it provides > more benefit IMO. > The Sling resource API is intented to provide full CRUD operations - this has always been the case but we just haven't implemented everything yet. And I think you're still missunderstanding this proposal and what it is about.
In addition, like I mentioned it several times in the past weeks, we need to grow the community and I really believe that we have a fair change if we directly support other NoSQL solutions. We won't grow if we just support Jackrabbit. Anyways, what about comparing Vidar's LDAP implementation with a different implementation leveraging JCR? We can then play around and see what works and what's best. Regards Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
