Hi,
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Basically the question is about how we want to brand and manage the
> Oak effort going forward.
Sounds like we have emerging consensus to keep Oak in Jackrabbit and
have Jackrabbit 3.0 be based on Oak. I'll follow up on the main
Jackrab
+1 to the Bertrand's suggestion "same project name, different software name"
cheers
stefan
+1 to the Bertrand's suggestion "same project name, different software name"
This would keep the community together, but also allows us to have different
aims for Jackrabbit (reference impl) and Oak (some level of compliance, not
reference impl).
On Oct 3, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> ...there is a goal in Oak to be less strict with regard to JCR spec
> compatibility which, in my opinion, makes a
> possibly important point of distinction.
> If this understanding is correct then I think it'd make sense to have
> separate
i'm feeling absolutly with angela.
like angela said I would also be afraid that jackrabbit has no future ...
what if we made it like the j2ee profiles. there is a full compliant profile
but also some lighter profiles.
we can make also profiles so that people can choose which profile they want us
hi tommaso
At the same time I see the community development concern; I'm still quite new
here so I don't have a clear understanding of who is actually working on both
Oak and Jackrabbit and who's working only on one of them, also it may be that
this distinction doesn't actually exist at the m
g [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
>> 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 Zit
into its own project later on when this turns out to be
feasible/beneficial.
Michael
Regards
Marcel
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2012 12:27
To: Oak devs
Subject: The destiny of Oak (Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Codename for
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.
that might be another way to look at it. but what we in fact
have right now is an oa
gards
Marcel
> -Original Message-
> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
> 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
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 03:10 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1.10.12 12:36, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.10.2012, at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>
1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting
> 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 codena
On 10/01/2012 03:10 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
On 1.10.12 12:36, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On 01.10.2012, at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project
I think 1) makes more sense
On 2012-10-01 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-10-01 15:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
2012/10/1 Julian Reschke :
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to call something "Jackrabbit"
that is so
different in what it supports compared to "current" Jackrabbit.
Just from the peanut gallery: we di
On 2012-10-01 15:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
2012/10/1 Julian Reschke :
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to call something "Jackrabbit" that is so
different in what it supports compared to "current" Jackrabbit.
Just from the peanut gallery: we did the same years ago with Cocoon,
the 2.0 ve
2012/10/1 Julian Reschke :
>
> I'm not sure that it's a good idea to call something "Jackrabbit" that is so
> different in what it supports compared to "current" Jackrabbit.
>
Just from the peanut gallery: we did the same years ago with Cocoon,
the 2.0 version was 100% different than every previou
On 1.10.12 12:36, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
> On 01.10.2012, at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> 1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
>
>> 2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project
>
> I think 1) makes more sense given all the innovative work going into
On 2012-10-01 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting 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
On 1.10.12 12:36, Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On 01.10.2012, at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project
I think 1) makes more sense given all the innovative work going into Oak.
On 01.10.2012, at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> 1) The Oak codebase will become Jackrabbit 3.0 sometime next year
> 2) We spin off the Oak effort to a new Apache project
I think 1) makes more sense given all the innovative work going into Oak.
Keeping Jackrabbit 2.x in maintenance mode seems m
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jukka Zitting 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
