Hi, On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes this makes total sense. My point was, if the oak-spi is nothing more > than jcr modulo transient space, why would we need another API?
I see where you're going. I have two main reasons why I think this would not be ideal: 1) It causes confusion, as in: Am I using "standard JCR" or "Oak JCR" here? What's the difference? 2) The JCR API is not designed with modularity or extensibility in mind. It's notoriously difficult to decorate or extend the API. For these reasons I think we should define a lower-level API that's explicitly designed to match Oak features. BR, Jukka Zitting
