Hendrik Beck (camunda) wrote:
One more thing I want to say:
"again you're proposing a major change to JCR."
"Maybe it's just me, but I have no idea how that could be implemented
efficiently, *in
particular* if you don't have the luxury to develop that functionality from
scratch."
1) In my eyes the public review is there to give any feedback, to discuss
everything and to make proposals, whether they are major changes or just
little remarks.
That's right. The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) was
that this is a major change to *JCR 1.0*.
2) I wouldn't agree that discussions about implementation details should be
part of a public review of a specification. Sure we should keep an eye on
the implementation, it has to be done at some point. But, we talk about JCR,
not Jackrabbit. The JCR specification shouldn't take care about
implementation details of one product (Jackrabbit), but it should find the
best way to make the specification according to people's needs and
requirements.
Actually, I wasn't talking about Jackrabbit either.
If JCR 2.0 adds requirements that are unlikely to be implemented, that's
IMHO a problem. Either you'll end up with no implementations, or with
broken implementations (with respect to that feature).
Best regards, Julian
