Sorry for disturbing you,i want to know that does the jackrabbit support the android now or in the future?
[email protected] From: Michael Dürig Date: 2014-01-16 16:51 To: dev Subject: Re: Roadmap for Jackrabbit 2.x and 3.0 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 >
