Hi, my preference is something like 2), but with the JCR related components moved to Jackrabbit. I'd like to see Oak as a hierarchical content repository implementation, but not necessarily as a JCR repository. The plugin mechanism in Oak was specifically designed for that purpose. Thus Jackrabbit 3 would be oak-jcr plus plugins needed to turn a pure Oak repository into a JCR repository. On the other hand Oak would mainly consist of the micro kernel and oak-core and provide a robust and scalable basis for Jackrabbit 3 but also other applications that directly speak to the Oak API.
Regards Marcel > -----Original Message----- > From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2012 12:27 > To: Oak devs > Subject: The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for the jr3 > implementation effort) > > 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? > > [1] When I asked, the early feedback from [email protected] about > the "Oak" codename was that something like "Apache Oak" would likely > be OK, but that we probably wouldn't be able to prevent anyone else > from starting a competing "Oak" project. Not sure if that's a problem > in practice. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
