On 2.10.12 9:56, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
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.
That's another interesting approach! While I this is very appealing
technically, I'm not sure whether we have the resources to go this way,
although I'd be in favour of it. Maybe we could go 1) initially and fork
of the "core" into its own project later on when this turns out to be
feasible/beneficial.
Michael
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
