I much like this set of definitions. I particularly like the Extensions set as this could accommodate the large number of modules which are used by downstream applications, but are not "required" for Sling to run. The only item I might argue, is that Contrib may be a better fit than Legacy, e.g. this is not a supported part of the application, but without the connotation of being old / out of date.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:50 AM Jason E Bailey <j...@apache.org> wrote: > My take - > > Core - Does this mean it has to be in the starter? Does everything that > shows up in the starter means it's Core? My take on the concept of "Core" > is that these are the minimal set of bundles required for Sling and that > every Sling product should have. > > Extensions - ? These are bundles that are supported and provide value but > that not all downstream applications might use. Potentially this would > cover scripting languages, jdbc support, resource providers, etc.., There > could be possible multiple sub sets of extensions that define the types of > extensions > > Legacy - bundles that aren't supported because of complexity, lack of > demand, no one is going to touch it. Use at your own risk sort of thing. > > Deprecated - It's here because we once made it available, but don't use > it, really, it's a security risk or a legal issue. > > > > - Jason > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Radu Cotescu wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > We had no native English speaker in the room when we came up with > > “experimental”. However, I think it denotes exactly the status of a > > module that was contributed to Sling but was never made a part of the > > core. I wouldn’t necessarily call a contrib module unmaintained, however > > its usage was not necessarily vetted by the majority of the Sling > > committers. > > > > Bleeding edge modules should still be part of the Whiteboard until they > > stabilise. The more I write about this, the more I’m tempted to say that > > we should maybe categorise our modules into “stable” (core), > > “beta” (contrib), “alpha” (whiteboard). > > > > What do the others think? > > > > Cheers, > > Radu > > > > > On 13 Sep 2018, at 18:48, Daniel Klco <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > One concern I have with the experimental (or perhaps the definition > > > therein) is that it seems much more bleeding edge than what we > currently > > > consider contrib. Is there some more middle ground here, between "not > part > > > of the "core"" and "use on your own risk, probably not well > maintained"? > > >
