Hi, [Felix Röthenbacher wrote]:
> I think, a JSR-170 repository can be much more adapted to the needs > of Lenya -- or generally, a CMS -- than a filesystem. JSR-170 offers > the tools to support a CMS storing and retrieving its content in > an easy, standardized way. I agree! > Please let me know what you think about the draft moving > Lenya away from the filesystem-centric approach to a more > powerful usage of the possibilities JSR-170 offers. +1 [Andreas Hartmann wrote]: > Do we still want to support other repository implementations, > especially the current source-based approach? I don't really see the need. All the world is heading towards JCR, and this is what JCR has been created for. > If not, should the switch to a JCR-only approach happen in 1.4, > or rather be deferred? What value would a 1.4 release add in its current state? There has been a lot of internal cleanup between 1.2 and the current 1.4, but what exciting new features could we offer to our users with a 1.4 in the current state. Even worse (thinking a bit in marketing terms): 1.4 is late anyqay. If it comes out now without the long awaited repiository integration (I think lots of people are awaiting this) we might disappoint the audience. My opinion. > If yes, do we want to require mirroring the functionality JCR offers > in the other repository implementations, or should we introduce > somthing like compliance levels (-1 for complexity reasons)? -1 (I think it isn't worth the effort) > (we can drop our "lightweigt repository layer" or reduce it to > a mere facade to JCR). +1 (drop it) > How about the JCR block? It looks like it won't help us, because > the whole source-based approach would be dropped, wouldn't it? I agree. I played a lot with it recently and found that a) I don't like some of the design decisions they made. b) It forces you back into a file system metapher. c) It is somewhat incomplete. I understand it had been created over in Cocoon land to serve very specific needs and I am quite happy that they made it available, but I suspect it might get replaced or at least undergo quite an amount of development (hopefully). See: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg32862.html In its current state, it's fine to access single elements from a JCR repository, but it does not really offer a lot of value when it comes to more complex content retrieval IMO. In other words: It will do a good job if you have a site defined by other meands and you want to pull in very specific pieces of content from a repo. But that's it so far. They also keep discussing about the question what protocol to use to access content from different repos, i.e. should it be jcr1://..., jcr2://, jcr:repo1:// and jcr:repo2:// or jcr://repo1/... and jcr://repo2/... . Summa sumarum: I am not sure the JCR block (in its current state) is the solid fondation for Lenya's core operations. Having said all that, there is probably one question left: What contract do we intent to implement between the sitemap and JCR in Lenya? At some point in time, a Generator needs to access content from the JCR repository. Regards, Torsten > Felix Röthenbacher wrote: > > [...] > >> Please let me know what you think about the draft moving >> Lenya away from the filesystem-centric approach to a more >> powerful usage of the possibilities JSR-170 offers. > > In theory, it would of course be great to leverage the full > power of JCR. > > Some open questions: > > Do we still want to support other repository implementations, > especially the current source-based approach? > > If not, should the switch to a JCR-only approach happen in 1.4, > or rather be deferred? > > If yes, do we want to require mirroring the functionality JCR offers > in the other repository implementations, or should we introduce > somthing like compliance levels (-1 for complexity reasons)? > > > IMO the recent experiences with JCR suggest that the integration > is rather simple and straightforward, so I'm already in favor of > focusing on JCR only. This will certainly increase the power of > the Lenya core (queries etc.) and even make things much easier > (we can drop our "lightweigt repository layer" or reduce it to > a mere facade to JCR). > > How about the JCR block? It looks like it won't help us, because > the whole source-based approach would be dropped, wouldn't it? > > > -- Andreas > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
