Hi, On 8/16/07, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 16.08.2007, 15:01 +0300 schrieb Jukka Zitting: > > For now I'd just put the extra methods directly on the SessionImpl and > > EventImpl classes. We can formalize them in a jackrabbit-api (or > > jackrabbit-jsr283) extension interface if they seem useful to a big > > enough audience. > > The problem of not having it in the API someplace, the audience might > not grow enough :-) Reason: Generally I will not have access to the impl > classes but just to the api classes ... > > Therefore, if consensus would be reached, that this might be usefull, I > would suggest to add it to the API - and be it in the form of some kind > of "tentative" API.
Yeah, I'm fine with adding stuff to the API as long as the consensus is broad enough. I'm just concerned that we don't start putting things to the API just because they seem like a good idea, and then find out that the interface needs to be modified in some way or that nobody's really using it in the end. >From that perspective it's a better idea to have such extensions first just as extra methods in the implementation classes and promote them to API interfaces once we have at least two or three independent users reporting that they are happy with the additions. The only problem would be model 2 and 3 deployments where the implementation classes aren't available to the client. I guess we could also put such tentative interfaces to snapshot versions of jackrabbit-api as long as we are ready to take them out before the next release in case we don't yet have a broad enough consensus. BR, Jukka Zitting
