I don't think jsr 170 forms a logical stack for Slide - who's primary concern is WebDAV protocol implementation. I am very skeptical of jsr 170 - more so after looking at participants - Fujitsu, IBM, BEA, Sun, HP, Borland aren't exactly companies I think of when considering content management systems. I think this is another example of the jcp's callous disregard for what already exists. Webdav, Delta V, ACL, WebDAV-search etc. already exist as standards in a language neutral way. Instead of specifying a java API that basically uses java native method calls in lieu of http, they've created a whole parallel spec set. What a waste ...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Broberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Slide Users Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: RE: Slide and JSR170 > Thanks for the response. I quess my question is, "What is the overall > architecture for CMS as far as Apache goes ?" There seems to be quite a bit > of duplication, and I am not sure why slide wouldn't use jackrabbit, or 170. > They seem like the logical stack. I agree with your assessment re: webdav. > It is more global in nature. > > Just curious, why do you recommend against using the server Slide API. Is > it because it is only relevant to slide ? If so, I agree, because it causes > technology lockin. So, if that is the case, what is the benefit of the > server api at all ? > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:08 PM > To: Slide Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Slide and JSR170 > > Slide does not support JRS170. Jackrabbit isn't used either. It's the other > way round as well, Jackrabbit does not use Slide either. > > I guess there are quite a number of parameters included in the decision > which way to go, so I really can not make any recommendation. > > Good thing about WebDAV is that there already are a number of applications > supporting it. Drawback would be that WebDAV by nature is a client/sever > protocol, so you would always have the communication overhead. On the other > hand while JSR170 covers only certain aspects of a content store, WebDAV is > pretty much complete. Additionally, programming against JSR170 would > restrict you to Java solutions. > > I *personally* would not at all recommend programming against the sever > Slide API... > > Oliver > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:52:17 -0500, Jeff Broberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, simple question. Is the Slide API based on JSR170 ? If so, is > > JackRabbit used inside Slide ? We are considering if we should write > > our java clients to use WebDAV client protocols or use the Slide API, > > or if possible the 170 api. > > > > Any guidance would be appreciated. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
