Is there a guide for how to migrate from jackrabbit 2.* to oak? On 16 January 2014 18:51, Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 15.1.14 7:35 , Jukka Zitting wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> a) Upgrade Jackrabbit Classic to use Lucene 4. As discussed earlier >> (http://markmail.org/message/nv5jeeoda7qe5qen) this is pretty hard, >> and it's questionable whether the benefits are worth the effort. > > > -0, too little benefit for the effort it would take. > > >> >> b) Downgrade Oak to use Lucene 3. This should be doable with not much >> effort, as the Lucene integration in Oak is much simpler than in >> Jackrabbit Classic. It might even be possible to make oak-lucene >> version-independent, so it would work with both Lucene 3 and 4. > > > -1, people will start bugging us about upgrading to Lucene 4 as soon as Oak > is out. > > >> >> c) Ship the jackrabbit deployment packages without Lucene integration >> for Oak. This would allow people to start playing with Oak in their >> existing deployments, but require some deployment changes for full Oak >> functionality. > > > +0, not sure how much this degrades the actual value of the deployment > packages though. > > >> >> d) Use the class rewriting tricks in something like the Shade plugin >> [1] to be able to include both Lucene 3 *and* 4 in the same deployment >> packages. I'm not sure if this is even possible with Lucene, or how >> much effort it would require. >> >> e) Use a custom classloader setup to load the correct version of >> Lucene depending on the selected Jackrabbit mode. > > > -10^12, and spend the rest of our lives debugging all kinds of weird class > loading issues in each and every deployment container ;-) > > >> >> f) Adjust the Jackrabbit deployment packages to use an embedded OSGi >> container, and use it to selectively deploy the required >> implementation components, including the correct version of Lucene. > > > +1 if we have a strong argument for going with the combined deployment > option. > > >> >> g) Or as a last resort, abandon the idea of a joint deployment >> package. Jackrabbit Classic and Oak would be shipped in separate >> deployment artifacts. > > > +1 for its simplicity otherwise. > > Michael > > >> >> I'm thinking of trying to implement one or two of these alternatives >> within the next few weeks, and cut Jackrabbit 2.8 based on that work >> and including something like Oak 0.16 as a beta feature. Assuming that >> approach works and Oak stabilizes as planned, we could then follow up >> with Jackrabbit 3.0 fairly soon after 2.8. >> >> [1] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/ >> >> BR, >> >> Jukka Zitting >> >
-- -Tor
