On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As discussed earlier and mentioned again by Roy, the Oak name is a bit > > troublesome for more general branding, which reinforces the point that > > we'll use it as a codename for the development effort and decide later > > on whether to brand the result as "Jackrabbit 3" or something else. > > As discussed last week in Berlin, with 6+ months since we started the > Oak effort it's probably now time to revisit this issue. > > Basically the question is about how we want to brand and manage the > Oak effort going forward. It looks like we have two main alternatives > to choose from: > > 1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year > replacing the current Jackrabbit trunk, and the Oak codename will > gradually be dropped. Current Jackrabbit trunk will move to a separate > 2.x branch where it will remain in maintenance mode until everyone has > had a chance to migrate to Jackrabbit 3.x. Jackrabbit 3.0 will no > longer strive to be a "fully conforming" reference implementation of > JCR. > > 2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project (Apache Oak, or > something else [1]) with its own goals and community; of course with a > high priority to make migration from Jackrabbit as easy as possible. > Jackrabbit will remain the "fully conforming" JCR implementation, with > Jackrabbit 3.0 most likely becoming the reference implementation of > JSR 333. Over time the focus of Jackrabbit may shift to become more of > a JCR "commons" place where people collaborate on things like the JCR > remoting layers, OCM, the test suite, and of course the reference > implementation. > > WDYT? > > For me the question largely comes down to whether there is a market for both projects independent of each other. Whether when Oak has matured enough, Jackrabbit 2 will be phased out or that, independent of Oak, a reference implementation of the JCR specification that strives for maximum compliancy is still viable. Personally I think not, and therefore I am leaning towards Oak as Jackrabbit 3. -- Unico
