Janne, What would that do to those of us using the JDBCPageProvider (and the thousands of pages implemented via that WikiPageProvider)?
Terry PS: Sorry, but I'm also beginning to wonder if these grand and glorious plans aren't taking JSPWiki in a direction that will drastically alter the characteristics that attracted me to it from the outset. On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:12 +0200, Janne Jalkanen wrote: > > So you don't see any way of using a JSPWiki 3.0 implementation > > *without* JSR-170? > > Exactly. It would be duplication of work. And mostly really stupid > work, too, since it would mean reinventing the JSR-170 concepts. > > > I'm rather surprised, really. One of the real > > strengths of JSPWiki is that there's a nice, lightweight file > > system implementation too. > > The job of the lightweight file system implementation is the job of > the backend, in this case, JSR-170. It makes a lot of sense to > separate backend (i.e. storage) under a separate API, and where we > now use the WikiPageProvider, we can get far better support by using > JCR. > > > If the entry ramp is a complex database > > Nobody said anything about complex databases. > > I have, over the past year, been writing a lightweight implementation > of JSR-170, which uses a very similar pluggable provider system like > the current WikiPageProvider. And yes, it ships with a lightweight > file system provider as well. And no, it does not pass the TCK yet. > And yes, I was planning to offer it as the default JCR Repository for > JSPWiki 3, and yes, users who need HA or scalability can then switch > to Jackrabbit at the flick of a switch. > > Murray, calm down. I wouldn't want to throw away the advantages of > JSPWiki, and I also still do not particularly like databases. > > /Janne
