On 7/20/07, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
I agree with both you comments here. However, I do feel that the OP
may be right (I confess that I was not facing this situation so far,
but this is probably because my app is a bit different).
I would really appreciate if somebody would post on this thread a
scenario in which the current behavior is proving helpful (and I have
in mind the scenario posted here: searching for a John and getting a
Joe instead -- frankly speaking I would be totally surprised in real
life if I would be looking for my wife and getting somebody else
instead :-) ).
bests,
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
