Hi all, > Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 12:08 +0200 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > > Yes, so my proposal is not much different to what we have now, except > > that, as we see below, Content and Servlets are more decoupled from > > JCR, mostly by using URIs instead of paths. > > I like this (further) decoupling.
I think generally I would be cautious about introducing too much abstraction. In many respects unnecessary abstraction causes software to fail in the market. I agree with Stefano 100% on this one ... --- http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/papers/ac2006.2.pdf see slide 145 and following (I am not kidding...;) ) --- ... which he calls "Flexibility syndrome" or "yagni". I think one of the reasons why Hibernate was more successful than JDO or EJB is really because it clearly always focussed on an RDBMS as the backing store, which made its purpose very simple and clear and allowed for a lot of optimizations that made sense for that one persistence layer. I believe see that leaving out the right features and extension points is the real art of software design and development, which in my mind shows particularly well in Apple vs. MS applications ;) Some more thoughts on choices and flexibility of Joel on that: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html Bottom-line (and small-surprise-tm): I do not mind strong ties between Sling and JCR. I think we should address all the possible things that people could possibly use Sling for beyond JCR, once we are confronted with real-life usecases. (in Stefano speak: "scratch your own itch!") regards, david
