Am Dienstag, den 09.10.2007, 16:35 +0200 schrieb David Nuescheler: > For me sling has a very simple main purpose: > It is the JCR centric web application development > framework of my dreams.
Yes, true, but ... "JCR-centric" is a very vague term in itself :-) > I think being more osgi than web framework A or > more restful than framework B does not really justify > slings existence. I think it is crucial for the success > of sling to be able to argue why it is different, > not so much why it is incrementally better. I do not completely agree here: There are multiple requirements for a web application framework: Extensibility, Manageability, Stability, Ease-of-Use, Data Persistence come to mind; certainly there are more. Now, Sling is probably not revolutionary with respect to a single requirement (except with regard to Data Persistencew) in that it is better to extend than framework X, better to manage than framework Y etc. All-in-all, when counting all parts together, you get a framework which is dramatically "better" than other frameworks in the field. And this is IMHO the real value of Sling. > I think putting the Content Repository at its core > certainly gives sling a very clear and easy to > express differentiator. This is what we do, except that we do not lock the Sling API into the JCR but say, a Sling application may depend on Sling providing the data to work with in a uniform fassion and that Sling applications do not have to care much about persistence issues. This is IMHO a big differentiator to most if not all frameworks around. Currently, Sling is of course locked into JCR, as the Content provisioning only supports JCR and authentication depends on and requires the JCR repository. Regards Felix
